For over three decades, recommendations by High Court collegia were largely accepted by the Supreme Court’s three-member collegium, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Scrutiny was generally limited to the number of significant cases handled by a lawyer and an Intelligence Bureau (IB) report on the individual’s reputation. Only a small percentage—10-15%—were rejected, typically due to adverse IB inputs or low declared income, which indicated limited legal practice.
According to the TOI report, at one point, scrutiny was so relaxed that the SC collegium had approved the appointment of a sitting CJI’s sister as a High Court judge despite an annual income below ₹1 lakh—a figure that would have still entitled her to a judge’s pension.
However, following his appointment as CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, introduced a new process involving personal interactions with recommended candidates. The move aimed to assess the judicial temperament and overall suitability of prospective judges in constitutional courts.
This step was seen as necessary amid growing concerns over controversial remarks by judges in public forums, questionable High Court rulings, and allegations of judicial corruption. The Supreme Court has had to intervene on its own in some cases—such as problematic interpretations of serious criminal offences—and observed that better screening was required.
Since the introduction of interviews, the proportion of recommended candidates being approved for appointment has dropped significantly, reflecting a stricter approach in assessing candidates’ readiness for constitutional court responsibilities.(With inputs from TOI)
