Justice Surya Kant, who assumed office as the Chief Justice of India on November 24 for a 15-month tenure, has indicated a renewed push towards greater transparency, merit-based selection and institutional balance within the Supreme Court’s Collegium system. In an interview, the CJI underlined that while the existing system has evolved significantly over the years, there remains scope for refinement without undermining judicial independence.
COLLEGIUM HAS EVOLVED, BUT REFORM IS ONGOING
Justice Surya Kant acknowledged that the Collegium system, often criticised for opacity, is “far more open and transparent today than it once was.” He pointed out that reforms introduced by his predecessors—particularly in-person interactions with candidates being considered for elevation—have strengthened the credibility of appointments.
“These interactions allow Collegium members to assess candidates directly and arrive at a more objective view,” he said, adding that such measures have helped move the process away from purely file-based decision-making.
However, he stressed that reform is not a one-time exercise. “Any system, no matter how well-established, requires improvement at some stage,” Justice Kant observed, emphasising that institutions must adapt as society and its expectations evolve.
MERIT, INTEGRITY AND TEMPERAMENT AT THE CORE
The Chief Justice made it clear that his approach to judicial appointments would centre firmly on merit, experience, integrity and judicial temperament. According to him, these factors must remain non-negotiable, regardless of public debate or external pressure.
“Credentials of the candidate—their merit, their integrity, and their experience—should remain central considerations in every appointment,” he said, signalling a continuity of principle with sharper emphasis on objective evaluation.
Justice Kant also highlighted that judicial independence does not merely mean freedom from executive interference, but also freedom from pressure groups. This principle, he noted, applies equally to the functioning of the Collegium, which must take decisions solely in the interest of the institution and constitutional values.
TRANSPARENCY WITH NECESSARY LIMITS
On the question of openness in appointments, Justice Surya Kant pointed to recent efforts by the Supreme Court to provide reasons for approvals and disapprovals in elevation matters. This, he said, marked an important shift towards accountability.
At the same time, he cautioned against unrealistic expectations of complete disclosure. “The process is inherently complex and quite lengthy. There are several internal procedures and assessments involved that cannot be entirely placed in the public domain,” he explained.
Striking the right balance, according to the CJI, is crucial—enhancing transparency without compromising the integrity of confidential inputs, institutional consultations and sensitive assessments.
NJAC VERDICT AND THE WAY FORWARD
While the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant suggested that transparency need not be sacrificed within the Collegium framework. Incremental reforms, better documentation of decisions and clearer articulation of selection criteria, he indicated, could strengthen public trust without altering the constitutional structure.
His comments reflect a pragmatic approach: reform from within rather than structural upheaval.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTINUITY, NOT DISRUPTION
Justice Surya Kant was careful to situate his vision within the institutional legacy of the Supreme Court. With 52 Chief Justices preceding him, he noted that while each CJI brings a distinct working style, commitment to justice and institutional stability has remained constant.
Rather than radical departures, his roadmap appears focused on consolidation—fine-tuning the Collegium, reinforcing meritocracy, and ensuring judicial independence remains insulated from both executive influence and populist pressure.
As debates around judicial appointments continue, Justice Surya Kant’s articulation suggests a calibrated reform agenda: cautious, constitutional, and rooted firmly in institutional experience.
