Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India said citizens have a right to know who their judges are [1].
The remarks target the confidentiality of the collegium system, which governs how judges are appointed and transferred within the Indian judiciary [1]. Because this process happens behind closed doors, critics have long argued it lacks accountability and public oversight [2].
Justice Bhuyan called for greater transparency in the deliberations of the Supreme Court collegium [1]. He said that opening the process aligns with the broader principle of judicial openness [1]. By making these deliberations more transparent, he said the public could better understand the criteria used to select the individuals who will adjudicate their legal cases [2].
The collegium system is a unique mechanism where a group of the most senior judges decides on the appointment of their peers [1]. While the system is designed to ensure judicial independence from political influence, the secrecy surrounding its decisions has remained a point of contention in India [2].
Bhuyan said the right to know who is being appointed is essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system [3]. He said the current level of confidentiality may hinder the ability of citizens to feel confident in the impartiality of the bench [2].
The judge's comments come at a time of ongoing debate regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch in India [1]. While the collegium maintains its authority to nominate judges, the government has previously sought more input into the selection process [1].
Justice Bhuyan's call for openness emphasizes that the legitimacy of the court depends not only on the quality of its rulings, but also on the perceived fairness of how its members are chosen [3].
“Citizens have a right to know who their judges are.”
This call for transparency from within the Supreme Court suggests a growing internal recognition that the collegium system's secrecy may be a liability. If the judiciary moves toward a more open appointment process, it could reduce friction with the executive branch and increase public confidence in the impartiality of the courts.
