What Sparked the Debate?

Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan Flags Collegium Opacity and Calls for Greater Transparency

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan warned on 1 August 2026 that the Supreme Court Supreme Court Collegium’s habit of withholding reasons for judge‑elevations creates a “loophole” for candidates with extremist or derogatory views. Speaking at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s launch of The Judicial Transparency Index, he cited a recent Allahabad High Court judge’s reference to a minority community as “ants” and highlighted a July 24 order by Chief Justice D.Y. Kant that drew a line between livestreaming court proceedings and their commercial misuse.

The remarks came during a keynote address at the Vidhi Centre’s report launch, where Justice Bhuyan criticised the Collegium’s “return to opacity” in recent years. He noted that the last three Collegium statements omitted any rationale for recommending elevation, a departure from earlier practice that included brief explanatory notes.

• ▸The report The Judicial Transparency Index was released on 1 August 2026.
• ▸Justice Bhuyan cited a former Allahabad High Court judge’s “ants” comment as a case of unchecked bias.
• ▸The July 24 order by CJI D.Y. Kant affirmed livestreaming while warning against de‑contextualised clips.

These facts underscore a growing tension between judicial independence and public accountability.

Legal Framework for Judicial Transparency

India’s constitutional architecture provides the basis for judicial scrutiny. Article 13 bars any law that contravenes the Constitution, while Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights through writ jurisdiction. The doctrine of Judicial Review—first articulated in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)—enables courts to invalidate statutes that breach the basic structure of the Constitution. Moreover, the Right to Information Act 2005 extends the principle of openness to public institutions, including the judiciary, albeit with specific exemptions.

• ▸Article 13 declares any law inconsistent with the Constitution void.
• ▸Article 32 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• ▸The Kesavananda Bharati Case introduced the basic‑structure doctrine, a cornerstone of Indian judicial review.
• ▸The Right to Information Act 2005 obliges public bodies to disclose information, subject to limited exemptions.

Together, these provisions create a constitutional expectation that judicial processes should not be shrouded in secrecy.

Collegium’s Opacity: Institutional Implications

Justice Bhuyan argued that the lack of disclosed criteria for elevation erodes public confidence and risks admitting judges whose past remarks may be unconstitutional. The Collegium’s internal memoranda, unlike the limited disclosures in the Memorandum of Procedure, are not publicly accessible, leaving litigants and citizens in the dark about the merit of appointments.

• ▸The Collegium’s recent statements omitted any justification for recommendations.
• ▸No codified, publicly available instrument details the criteria for elevation.
• ▸Past Collegium statements included brief reasons, a practice now abandoned.
• ▸The Memorandum of Procedure offers only limited transparency compared with the current opacity.

This secrecy challenges the principle that “the very soul of justice” lies in openness, as articulated by the Supreme Court in the 2020 Subhash Chandra Agarwal judgment.

Livestreaming and the Balance Between Openness and Misuse

The July 24 order by CJI Kant clarified that while livestreaming promotes transparency, unedited fragments can be weaponised to misrepresent judicial discourse. Justice Bhuyan stressed that “open courts effectively foster public confidence” and warned that sensational captions distort the reality of oral exchanges, potentially harming the reputation of judges, advocates, and litigants.

• ▸The order permits livestreaming but restricts unauthorised clipping of proceedings.
• ▸Concerns focus on “de‑contextualised fragments” being circulated with sensational captions.
• ▸The Supreme Court has affirmed that transparency does not threaten judicial independence.
• ▸Livestreaming remains the most visible transparency development of the last decade.

By drawing a distinction between transparency of process and the licence to manufacture misleading narratives, the Court seeks to preserve both openness and institutional integrity.

Way Forward: Reform Options

Justice Bhuyan’s observations point to three actionable reforms. First, codify the criteria for judicial elevation in a publicly accessible document, mirroring the transparency standards of the Right to Information Act. Second, institutionalise a mechanism for publishing brief rationales alongside each Collegium recommendation, akin to the practice before the recent opacity trend. Third, enhance the livestreaming framework with real‑time commentary from court officials to prevent misinterpretation of out‑of‑context excerpts.

• ▸Propose a statutory amendment to the Judicial Appointments process mandating disclosure of reasons.
• ▸Introduce a “Transparency Annex” to the Memorandum of Procedure with clear criteria.
• ▸Expand the livestreaming protocol to include official summaries after each hearing.

These steps could restore public trust while safeguarding the independence essential to the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.