This brainstorming edit by Editor-in-Chief of This is News Network Lalit Shastri raises serious concerns about the balance of power in a democracy, the legitimacy of the Collegium system for the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the fundamental principle of accountability. These are not just important—they are essential to the health of our constitutional framework.

By contrasting the democratic mandate of the democratically elected people’s representatives and lawmakers with the opacity of judicial appointments, Shastri has underscored a structural imbalance that many avoid confronting. It’s the kind of fearless editorial voice that can stir meaningful debate.

By Lalit Shastri

India is a vibrant parliamentary democracy. Here, governments are formed by winning the confidence of the Lok Sabha, comprising representatives directly elected by the people. These representatives, forming the political executive, are answerable to Parliament and, through it, to the citizenry. Every bill passed, every policy implemented, and every action taken by the government is subject to public scrutiny, debate, and finally, to the ultimate democratic test—the general elections.

In stark contrast, we have the higher judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India that has placed itself on a pedestal beyond public accountability. The system through which judges are appointed to the apex court and the high courts — the so-called Collegium system—stands in complete violation of the very letter and spirit of our Constitution. It is a system not born out of constitutional mandate but judicial invention. The Constitution makes no mention of the Collegium. It is a mechanism crafted by judges for judges, functioning in an opaque environment where accountability is conspicuously absent.

Let us call it what it is—an exclusive and self-perpetuating club of individuals who, behind closed doors, determine who will ascend to wield the immense power of constitutional interpretation, without ever being subject to the democratic test of accountability. There is no mechanism to question, review, or oppose their decisions. The people of India, on whose behalf the Constitution functions, have no say, no insight, and no influence over this vital pillar of governance.

It is this lack of transparency and insulation from public scrutiny that has pushed the system of judicial appointments to a dangerous crossroads. For a democracy that prides itself on checks and balances, the Collegium stands as an anomaly — a relic of judicial overreach masquerading as independence.

While the executive is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament to the people, the judiciary operates in a vacuum of accountability—especially in the appointment of judges through the Collegium system. This opaque mechanism has repeatedly failed to address serious lapses, and the recent discovery of huge cash at the residence of a High Court judge in New Delhi is a glaring example. The system’s rickety response to such incidents only deepens public concern. This institutional imbalance must be urgently corrected.

The recent forwarding of a complaint by retired High Court Judge Rakesh Kumar to the Department of Personnel and Training seeking sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for a CBI probe against former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud adds urgency to the call for transparency. The allegations, centered on the irregular constitution of Supreme Court benches to allegedly extend undue favour during court recess, raise critical questions about internal checks and the potential abuse of authority at the highest level of the judiciary.

The nation can no longer turn a blind eye to this glaring constitutional distortion. The people of India must assert their rightful place as the ultimate stakeholders in this democracy. The judicial system is not an island. It is time we demand a transparent, accountable, and constitutionally sound method of appointing judges—one that reflects the will and wisdom of the Republic, not the whims of a few.

This is not just a matter of legal reform. It is a democratic imperative.