SCBA Demands Urgent Collegium Reform, Citing "Structural Flaws" and "Systemic Exclusion"

New Delhi – In a significant move that could reignite the debate on judicial appointments, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has formally called for an urgent overhaul of the collegium system. In a strongly worded letter to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, SCBA President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has flagged "structural flaws" within the current mechanism, demanding the finalisation of the long-pending Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to establish a "transparent, merit-driven, and equitable framework" for appointing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The letter, dated September 12, argues that while the collegium was designed to protect judicial independence, it has "inadvertently created significant challenges" that undermine meritocracy, sideline deserving legal talent, and erode public confidence in the judiciary. This intervention is particularly noteworthy as it comes from a powerful body of apex court lawyers, an institution historically at the forefront of defending judicial autonomy. A decade ago, it was the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association that successfully challenged the government's National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Now, the SCBA's critique from within suggests a growing consensus that the status quo is untenable.

"The prevailing collegium system, while designed to preserve judicial independence, has inadvertently created significant challenges. Its structural flaws demand urgent and comprehensive course correction," Singh stated in the letter, emphasizing that any further delay in implementing reforms laid down by the Supreme Court itself in its 2016 judgment is "indefensible."

---

The Core Criticisms: Patronage, Exclusion, and Under-Representation

The SCBA’s letter meticulously outlines three primary areas of concern where the current system is allegedly failing, moving beyond abstract principles to cite concrete examples and data.

1. Systematic Marginalisation of the Supreme Court Bar: A key grievance is the arbitrary exclusion of the "vast talent pool" within the Supreme Court Bar from consideration for elevation to their home High Courts. Singh argues that these practitioners, whose daily work involves engaging with complex questions of national jurisprudence, possess qualifications that should be viewed as superior. Instead, they are being "systematically overlooked." This practice, the letter contends, "not only wastes valuable judicial talent but also undermines the core principle of merit-based selection."

2. Troubling Lack of Diversity: The SCBA has held the collegium directly responsible for the stark under-representation of women and other diverse groups on the bench. Citing official data from February 2024, the letter points out that women constitute a mere 9.5% of the sanctioned strength in High Courts and a "stark 2.94%" in the Supreme Court.

Singh described this as a "glaring indictment of systemic exclusion, where the tyranny of a presumed meritocracy masks a deeper reliance on informal networks and patronage." The letter suggests that the opaque nature of the collegium's functioning perpetuates a system where personal connections and visibility can trump demonstrable merit, disproportionately affecting candidates from marginalised backgrounds.

3. The Invisibility of "Unseen Architects": The critique also extends to the very definition of legal competence that the current system seems to employ. The SCBA highlights that the selection process focuses almost exclusively on arguing counsels—the "visible face" in the courtroom—while ignoring the crucial contributions of briefing lawyers and juniors. These professionals, described as the "unseen architects" of litigation, are often responsible for the deep research, strategic thinking, and drafting that form the backbone of successful arguments. "To elevate only the visible face is to perpetuate a flawed understanding of competence," the letter asserts, calling for a more holistic evaluation of legal skill.

---

A Blueprint for Reform: Institutionalising Transparency and Merit

Rather than advocating for the dismantling of the collegium, the SCBA has proposed a series of institutional safeguards designed to strengthen it from within. These suggestions are rooted in the Supreme Court's own directives in the Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) judgment, which struck down the NJAC but simultaneously acknowledged the need to reform the collegium. The SCBA's proposed blueprint for the MoP includes four key pillars:

1. Establishment of a Permanent Secretariat: To ensure institutional memory and streamline the process, the SCBA recommends setting up a permanent, independent secretariat in each High Court and the Supreme Court. This body would be responsible for maintaining comprehensive records of potential candidates, managing data on vacancies, and ensuring that appointments are processed in a timely manner, thus moving away from the current ad-hoc system.

2. A Formal, Application-Based Process: The letter calls for replacing the "current informal system" with a transparent process where applications for judgeship are publicly invited. This would broaden the talent pool significantly, ensuring that "every deserving candidate, including those from the Supreme Court Bar, is considered on demonstrable merit through a structured mechanism."

3. Published and Objective Eligibility Criteria: To guide selections and eliminate ambiguity, the SCBA insists that verifiable eligibility criteria be codified and published. These benchmarks should include factors such as minimum age, years of practice, number of reported judgments, and contributions to pro bono work. This would provide a clear and objective framework for evaluating all candidates.

4. A Robust Accountability Mechanism: To uphold fairness, the SCBA has proposed the creation of a formal grievance redressal system. This would allow individuals to challenge procedural irregularities and would introduce a layer of accountability into a process that is currently shielded from public scrutiny.

---

Legal and Political Context: A Decade-Old Impasse

The SCBA's letter arrives at a critical juncture. The finalisation of the MoP has been a major point of friction between the judiciary and the executive since the NJAC was invalidated in 2015. While revised drafts have shuttled between the Supreme Court Collegium and the Law Ministry, the process has been stuck in a logjam. The government maintains it is awaiting the Collegium’s final inputs, while the judiciary has asserted that its views were finalised and conveyed in March 2017.

The SCBA's push seeks to break this nearly decade-old impasse. It frames the issue not as a power struggle between institutions, but as a matter of constitutional necessity. By grounding its proposals in a Supreme Court judgment, the association cleverly positions its demands as an enforcement of judicial direction rather than a radical new agenda.

As President Vikas Singh concluded, these reforms are "not a radical overhaul" but essential institutional safeguards. The ultimate goal is to ensure that judicial elevation "must no longer be a function of proximity or visibility, but of merit, integrity, and constitutional fidelity." The judiciary's response to this call from its own bar will be a crucial test of its commitment to transparency and self-correction.