THROUGH THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD JUDGES CASES decided in the 1980s and 1990s, the judiciary gradually reasserted its authority over judicial appointments by the creation of the Collegium system. Ever since, critics have rightly pointed out the absence of transparency in the judicial appointments process. There is a lack of clear, publicly available criteria for selection or denial of appointment and a failure to disclose reasons as to how or why a candidate is suitable for appointment or not. The critics argue that this opacity and the absence of recorded reasons have fostered a climate in which corruption and nepotism can thrive, undermining both public trust and the integrity of the system. This problem persists today.
Although the Third Judges Case had held that the inter-se seniority of Judges within their High Court and their all-India seniority should be the primary ground for appointment to the Supreme Court, other considerations, such as merit and ensuring regional, religious and gender diversity, would also be valid considerations. However, due to the continuing opacity and secrecy, the departure from the seniority rule is often a point of speculation because the reasons for it are rarely disclosed.
In this piece, we look at a particular component from the various factors the Collegium takes into consideration in appointing or denying judgeship: the political affiliation of the candidate.
