Congress leader and senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi has hailed the Supreme Court collegium’s proposal to dissuade the appointment of judges’ close relatives in high courts. He emphasised that such reforms should be implemented swiftly to combat nepotism and enhance meritocracy in judicial appointments, which he described as “much murkier and more non-objective than originally conceived.”
Taking to X, Singhvi expressed his support for the move, calling it a bold and necessary step. “The reality of judicial appointments is much murkier and far more objective than originally conceived. Mutual backscratching, uncle judges, and family lineages demoralise others and tarnish the institution’s reputation,” he remarked.
Singhvi lamented the systemic resistance to change, noting that even straightforward reforms, such as banning lawyer relatives from practicing in the same high court as their judge relatives, have been difficult to implement. “Time and again, the system has proved stronger than desirable impulses for reform,” he added.
Recalling an idea he floated decades ago, Singhvi suggested that collegium judges disguise themselves and observe candidates—whether judges or lawyers—in action to gain an unfiltered understanding of their capabilities. “We would all be astonished (and scared) at the gap between CVs and reality, between paper appraisals and courtroom performance,” he wrote, endorsing the proposed interviews as a significant improvement, albeit not as effective as surprise inspections.
The Supreme Court collegium is reportedly deliberating on a proposal that could prevent high court collegiums from recommending candidates whose parents or close relatives are current or former judges of the Supreme Court or high courts. Sources suggest this reform could diversify the judiciary by creating more opportunities for first-generation lawyers and ensuring merit trumps lineage.
While the idea has garnered support, concerns have been raised about the potential exclusion of deserving candidates solely due to familial ties to the judiciary. A source remarked that such disqualification could lead to unintended injustice but acknowledged the potential benefits in fostering inclusivity and merit-based appointments.
The collegium, currently comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S. Oka for high court recommendations, has recently introduced personal interactions with candidates for elevation. This marks a departure from the traditional reliance on biodata, written evaluations, and intelligence reports, signalling a progressive shift towards transparency and accountability.
As the judiciary wrestles with these proposed reforms, Singhvi’s candid observations underscore the urgent need to overhaul a system often criticised for perpetuating privilege over performance. Whether the collegium’s radical ideas materialise into concrete changes remains to be seen, but the debate has undoubtedly reignited calls for judicial accountability and meritocracy.
