NEW DELHI: Criticising the Supreme Court collegium for not giving reasons for judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday said the lack of transparency creates room for individuals who later make unconstitutional or derogatory remarks to enter the judiciary.
Speaking at the launch of The Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing Disclosure of Information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, a report by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s JALDI initiative, Justice Bhuyan questioned the collegium’s recent departure from its earlier practice of recording reasons for recommending judges.
“I have noticed that the last three collegium resolutions contain no reasons whatsoever. Is this a step back from the principle of transparency?” Justice Bhuyan said. He said the absence of reasons not only weakens public confidence but also does a disservice to deserving candidates. “By not giving reasons, the institution actually does a disservice to many judges who are genuinely outstanding and have done tremendous work,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan said withholding reasons also creates space for unsuitable candidates to be elevated. “Conversely, 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," he said.
“To prevent entry of such people, there should be some discussion, there should be some reasons given,” he added. Although Justice Bhuyan did not name anyone, he referred to remarks made by a former Allahabad High Court judge, who had triggered controversy in 2024 after allegedly referring to a minority community as ‘ants’ during a speech delivered while serving as a judge.
Calling the collegium's return to opacity a recent development, Justice Bhuyan said earlier collegium resolutions at least contained brief reasons supporting recommendations. “I have seen that the last three statements of the Supreme Court collegium do not contain any reason at all for recommending elevation as opposed to the earlier statements where each of the recommendations was supported by some reason,” he said in his keynote address.
Justice Bhuyan also spoke about judicial transparency in the context of livestreaming court proceedings, describing it as “the most visible transparency development of the last decade.” Referring to a July 24 order passed by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, he said the judgment struck a balance between transparency and preventing misuse of court proceedings. “The court's concern is that decontextualised fragments of oral exchanges, observations made by judges in the course of argument, not findings, are being circulated with sensational captions, causing reputational harm to judges, advocates, and litigants alike, and distorting public understanding of what had actually happened in court,” Justice Bhuyan said.
“The order does not retreat from live streaming; it draws a distinction between transparency of the process and the licence to manufacture a misleading narrative from that process,” he added. Emphasising the importance of open courts, Justice Bhuyan said public access to courtroom proceedings was essential for maintaining confidence in the judiciary.
“Open courts effectively foster public confidence. The court of justice is a public forum. Open courts make it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions about the judiciary,” he said. “Allowing the litigants and members of the public to view courtroom proceedings ensures that judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner,” Justice Bhuyan added.