The collegium system is a judicial invention to protect independence but it has been criticised for opacity. With reference to the Memorandum of Procedure deadlock since 2015, comment.

Introduction:

The collegium system was read into Articles 124 and 217 by the Second Judges Case (1993) and elaborated in the Third Judges Case (1998); Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act 2014 and the NJAC Act for violating judicial independence — a basic-structure feature — but left the Memorandum of Procedure unsigned since December 2015.

Constitutional architecture: Article 124 governs Supreme Court appointments and Article 217 the High Courts, with collegium primacy in proposing names; the executive can return a name only once, after which reiteration binds — a doctrine first stated in S.P. Gupta (1981) and reversed in the Second Judges Case in 1993.

The MoP deadlock: The Supreme Court asked the Centre in 2015 to finalise a new MoP including a permanent secretariat, eligibility criteria and a complaints mechanism; it remains unsigned, and names — Justice Akil Kureshi's 2019 transfer and Justice K.M. Joseph's 2018 elevation — have been delayed for years, eroding morale and predictability.

Reform options: The UK Judicial Appointments Commission and the South African Judicial Service Commission offer comparator models with public criteria, candidate interviews and a permanent secretariat — without sacrificing independence, and without resurrecting the structural infirmities the 2015 verdict identified.

Way forward / Conclusion:

A jointly-signed MoP with a permanent secretariat, published criteria, and a constitutional time-limit on government action would preserve independence without reviving the NJAC.