Justice Bhuyan Bats for Transparent Judicial Appointments

Calling for greater transparency in the collegium system, Justice Bhuyan said withholding reasons for judicial appointments deprives deserving judges of recognition while leaving little room for informed public scrutiny.

BY PC Bureau

New Delhi, August 1: After Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s description of unemployed youth as “cockroaches” triggered the formation of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and a nationwide Gen Z movement, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a pointed reminder of the constitutional limits of judicial language, cautioning that a lack of transparency in judicial appointments could allow judges who describe people as “ants” or make other “wholly unconstitutional” remarks to reach the Bench.

Speaking at the launch of the Judicial Transparency Index organised by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Justice Bhuyan argued that the collegium system must disclose the reasons behind judicial appointments. Without naming anyone, he said the absence of transparency creates space for the elevation of individuals whose public observations may be inconsistent with constitutional values.

“By withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people as ‘ants’ and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional and contrary to the values of the Constitution,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Although Justice Bhuyan did not identify any judge, his remarks come at a time when judicial references likening sections of society to insects have sparked widespread public debate. His invocation of the word “ants” inevitably drew attention because it followed the controversy over Chief Justice Surya Kant’s “cockroaches” remark, which became the catalyst for one of the country’s largest student-led protest movements.

Justice Bhuyan said the collegium’s reluctance to disclose the rationale behind appointments does a disservice not only to deserving judges but also to public confidence in the institution.

“Outstanding judges deserve recognition for their work. By withholding reasons, we deny them that recognition. At the same time, we leave no room for informed public discussion when appointments are made,” he said.

He argued that greater transparency would help ensure that individuals whose outlook conflicts with constitutional morality are identified before elevation.

“To prevent the elevation of such individuals, there should be discussion. There should be reasons explaining what happened. What harm is caused if there is informed public debate on such decisions?” he asked.

Call for Greater Openness

In his address, Justice Bhuyan made a broader case for reforming the collegium system, saying that the process of appointing and transferring judges remains largely shielded from public scrutiny.

He noted that deliberations over judicial elevations and transfers remain confidential, reasons for rejecting or deferring candidates are seldom disclosed, and the criteria governing appointments are not codified in any publicly accessible framework.

Justice Bhuyan also pointed to what he described as a worrying change in the collegium’s recent functioning.

“I have seen that the last three statements of the Supreme Court collegium do not contain any reason at all for recommending elevation, unlike earlier statements where every recommendation was accompanied by some reasoning,” he observed.

Describing this as a “reflexive gap,” he said the judiciary had embraced transparency in its adjudicatory role but remained reluctant to apply the same standards to its own institutional decision-making.

“Deliberations over the elevation and transfer of judges remain confidential; reasons for rejecting or deferring a recommendation are rarely disclosed in full; and the criteria applied are not codified in any publicly accessible instrument comparable to the Memorandum of Procedure’s own limited disclosure,” he said.

READ: Mountaineering Icon Nirmal ‘Nims’ Purja Killed in Avalanche

Delhi: Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan says, “The report has been prepared under three broad categories: judicial processes, institutional governance and administration, and judicial as well as administrative personnel. Each of these categories is further divided into… pic.twitter.com/3VIhpdWN5X
— IANS (@ians_india) August 1, 2026

Justice Bhuyan also raised the larger issue of institutional accountability.

“Every legal system that claims to administer justice rather than merely dispense power must answer an old and uncomfortable question: Who watches the watchmen?” he asked.

His remarks have revived the debate over whether greater transparency in judicial appointments could strengthen public confidence in the higher judiciary while reducing the likelihood of judges whose public observations sit uneasily with constitutional values being elevated to constitutional courts.

Why the Collegium Continues to Be Debated

The collegium system, under which the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers to the higher judiciary, has long been criticised for its opacity.

Although the government may return recommendations for reconsideration, the collegium has the final say if it reiterates its decision.

Critics argue that the absence of publicly disclosed criteria and detailed reasons for appointments leaves the process vulnerable to allegations of arbitrariness and undermines public confidence. Supporters, however, maintain that the system remains essential for preserving judicial independence and insulating appointments from executive influence.

The controversy has repeatedly brought the judiciary and the executive into conflict. Parliament’s attempt to replace the collegium through the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 on the ground that it threatened judicial independence.

Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had defended the collegium in 2024, while acknowledging the need for greater openness, saying efforts were underway to improve transparency without compromising judicial independence.