Judicial Independence at Risk: Ex-Judge Critiques India's Collegium Delays

The friction between India’s executive branch and its judiciary has reached a critical juncture, as highlighted by former Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur’s recent assertions regarding the 'pocket veto' being exercised over judicial appointments. The Collegium system, a unique constitutional mechanism where a forum of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments to the higher judiciary, is designed to safeguard judicial independence. However, Justice Lokur’s disclosure that recommendations have been kept in abeyance for three to four years suggests a systemic bottleneck that threatens the functional capacity of the courts.

This administrative stalling represents a significant departure from the intended spirit of the Second and Third Judges Cases, which established the primacy of the judiciary in appointments. When the government sits on files without providing formal objections or returning them for reconsideration, it effectively bypasses the legal requirement to act on reiterated recommendations. Justice Lokur noted that in some instances, even after clearance, judges have had to wait nearly a year to take their oaths. This delay not only affects the bench's strength but also creates a chilling effect on potential candidates from the bar who may be reluctant to leave lucrative practices for an uncertain appointment process.

“

The current talk of removing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) underscores a procedural vacuum.

Beyond the judiciary, the briefing addresses a burgeoning crisis in the governance of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The current talk of removing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) underscores a procedural vacuum. While the CEC enjoys the same constitutional protection as a Supreme Court judge—requiring impeachment by Parliament—the preliminary process for initiating such a removal remains opaque. Justice Lokur pointed out that the law allows for removal on the recommendation of Election Commissioners, yet the specific circumstances and binding nature of such recommendations are not codified. This ambiguity leaves the ECI vulnerable to political maneuvering, particularly during high-stakes election cycles.