SCBA President Vikas Singh Urges Structural Reforms to Collegium System in Letter to CJI, Law Minister
(By: Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi, September,24,2025- Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has formally written to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai urging urgent reforms to the collegium system of judicial appointments. Singh emphasized that elevation to the higher judiciary must be based not on visibility or patronage but on merit, integrity, and constitutional fidelity.
“Entrusted power demands accountability; self-assumed power demands even greater accountability. As the ultimate protector of constitutional liberties, the judiciary must be bold, fearless, and uncompromisingly independent. Such a judiciary, however, cannot emerge unless the process of its own elevation is rooted in transparency and merit.” Singh wrote in his letter.
In his letter, Singh outlined serious structural flaws in the current collegium system that have undermined meritocracy and eroded confidence in judicial appointments. He warned that the exclusion of Supreme Court Bar talent from consideration for elevation to their home courts, despite their extensive national jurisprudence experience, systematically marginalizes valuable judicial resources.
“a glaring indictment of systemic exclusion, where the tyranny of a presumed meritocracy masks a deeper reliance on informal networks and patronage.”
The SCBA President highlighted key concerns including a lack of diversity and a tendency to prioritize patronage over merit. To address these issues, Singh demanded the creation of independent secretariats at both the Supreme Court and each High Court. These secretariats would maintain records, manage vacancies, and ensure timelier finalization of appointments.
Additionally, Singh called for implementing an application-based appointment process with published eligibility criteria and a robust accountability mechanism to enhance transparency and fairness.
“To elevate only the visible face is to perpetuate a flawed understanding of competence, reducing the process to a mere spectacle of a show of faces rather than a substantive evaluation of merit.”
The letter also urged the finalization and implementation of the long-pending Memorandum of Procedure to strengthen the collegium’s functioning and restore trust in judicial elevations.
This move reflects growing calls within the legal community and judiciary to overhaul the appointment process to uphold constitutional values and foster a diverse, meritorious bench. The SCBA’s intervention signals a decisive push for systemic correction in the Indian judicial appointments’ framework.
In a strongly worded communication addressed to the Union Law Minister, Singh drew attention to the long-pending proposal for the ‘Facilitation of Appointment of Judges Act’. He recalled that the legislation had been extensively discussed in Parliament but, unfortunately, was never brought into effect.
Emphasizing its importance in streamlining judicial appointments and addressing delays in filling vacancies, Singh urged the government to revive, refine, and adopt the proposed law at the earliest. He stressed that timely implementation would go a long way in ensuring a more efficient and transparent judicial appointment process, ultimately strengthening public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Based on the mandate of the Supreme Court, I suggest the following changes be embedded into the MоP:
1. Permanent and Independent Secretariat: An independent Secretariat should be established in each High Court and the Supreme Court to manage candidate data, maintain records of vacancies, and ensure institutional memory, thereby facilitating timely appointments.
2. Transparent Application-Based Process: The current informal system must be replaced with a formal process where applications are invited publicly. This ensures every deserving candidate, including those from the Supreme Court Bar, is considered on demonstrable merit through a structured mechanism.
3. Published Objective Criteria: Verifiable and objective eligibility criteria – such as minimum age, years of practice, reported judgments
and pro bono work – must be codified and published. All selections must be weighed against these transparent benchmarks.
4. Accountability Mechanism: A robust complaints mechanism must be instituted to address grievances and uphold the integrity of the selection process.
