Appointment and Accountability: Collegium versus NJAC

The process of appointing judges lies at the core of judicial independence debates. The collegium system, evolved through Supreme Court judgments, vests appointment power primarily in senior judges. Supporters argue that it shields the judiciary from executive interference. Critics contend that it lacks transparency, clear criteria, and external accountability.

The attempt to replace the collegium through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) reflected broader concerns about opacity. Its invalidation by the Supreme Court reaffirmed judicial primacy but did not resolve underlying governance issues. The continuing absence of a formal, transparent appointments framework fuels perceptions of arbitrariness and elitism, potentially undermining institutional legitimacy.

Executive Interference and Judicial Transfers

Judicial independence can be compromised subtly through transfers and post-retirement appointments. While transfers are constitutionally permitted, frequent or unexplained movements of High Court judges raise concerns about punitive or strategic motivations. Similarly, appointments of retired judges to executive or quasi-executive positions may create perceptions of influence, even when no impropriety exists.

Such practices affect not only actual independence but also its appearance. In constitutional systems, perception matters deeply; public confidence depends on visible separation between adjudication and political authority.

Judicial Delays and Vacancies

India’s judiciary faces chronic delays and mounting arrears. According to data from the National Judicial Data Grid, millions of cases remain pending across courts [1]. Vacancies in High Courts and subordinate courts exacerbate the problem, increasing workloads and reducing the quality of deliberation.

Although delays do not directly negate independence, they weaken judicial authority and effectiveness. When justice is excessively delayed, executive and administrative discretion often fills the void, shifting power away from courts.

Financial and Administrative Independence

While judicial salaries are constitutionally protected, administrative and infrastructural dependence persists. Court budgets are often controlled by executive departments, limiting flexibility in staffing, technology, and infrastructure development. Subordinate courts, in particular, face resource constraints that affect independence at the grassroots level.

True independence requires not only decisional autonomy but also administrative capacity. Without control over basic resources, courts struggle to function efficiently and assert authority.

Perception and Public Trust

Public trust in the judiciary has become increasingly fragile. Allegations of impropriety, internal disagreements aired publicly, and inconsistent standards of accountability contribute to scepticism. Media scrutiny and social media amplification intensify these challenges.

Independence ultimately rests on credibility. If courts are perceived as opaque, biased, or disconnected, their constitutional role is weakened, regardless of formal safeguards.