Courting Controversy: How India’s Collegium is Fueling Corruption and Nepotism, and Why it Must Go

• India’s judicial collegium system, created through the “Three Judges Cases,” has become opaque and self-serving, fostering nepotism, favoritism, and corruption while excluding transparency or public oversight.
• Nearly 38% of Supreme Court judges have family ties within the judiciary or politics, turning judicial appointments into a hereditary network often dubbed the “Uncle Judge Syndrome.”
• Corruption scandals, including the 2025 Justice Yashwant Varma case, reveal how secrecy and lack of accountability have allowed unethical behavior, bribery, and quid-pro-quo appointments to flourish.
• Collegium’s dominance has eroded public trust, slowed justice delivery, and weakened democratic faith, as citizens increasingly view courts as elitist and biased.
• Reinstating a reformed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) could balance independence with transparency, bringing merit, diversity, and accountability back to India’s judicial system

The collegium system in India is a one-of-a-kind gem of judicial wizardry for picking and shuffling judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was conjured up not by some boring constitutional rule, but through the sheer brilliance of judicial wordplay in the “Three Judges Cases” (1981, 1993, 1998).[1] Picture this: a lofty club of senior judges, with the Chief Justice of India as their ringmaster, wielding supreme power to handpick their brethren. Why? To heroically shield the judiciary from those pesky politicians meddling where they don’t belong. Truly, a masterstroke of self-governance by the robe-wearing elite.

In a paper titled ‘Judiciary at the Crossroads – An Eternal Debate on Judicial Appointments,’ lawyers Abhilasha SG, Medha M Puranik point out a stark fact: “India is the only constitutional democracy where the judiciary appoints its own judges.”[2]

However, this self-perpetuating model has faced mounting criticism from the executive, media, and the public for fostering insularity, lacking transparency, and enabling systemic flaws. The collegium’s opacity has led to nepotism, favoritism, and corruption within the judiciary, eroding public trust and contributing to broader institutional decay in India.

While the system was designed to insulate the judiciary from external pressures, its closed nature has inadvertently created internal vulnerabilities that undermine the rule of law and exacerbate corruption across society.

Nepotism and Favoritism in Judicial Appointments

Kusum Rawat (name changed) belongs to a family of judges. She had no interest in law, but her family pressured her to enroll in an LLB course. They argued: “The judiciary is an excellent profession for women; it has assured work hours, long summer and winter breaks, it gives you power and respect, you get a chauffeur-driven car, government accommodation, orderlies, police security, and more. What’s not to like? After you acquire a few years of work experience as a lawyer, we’ll sneak you in via the back door as a Sessions Judge.”

Rawat reluctantly agreed but did not attend a single day of law school. However, her family made sure the fees were paid and her attendance was recorded in the university register. At the end of each year, they would drag the reluctant student to the university campus for the exams, and after four years, they paid a local fixer to award her a second division.

After she graduated – with zero knowledge of law – Rawat registered herself in the bar council. A serving judge in her family got her a job with a Delhi-based law firm, plus she got a bunch of legal aid cases. However, after a few years, she gave up the profession for an overseas career.

Now, imagine if someone with a fake degree becomes a judge in a special court that tries complex terrorism cases. For instance, in the Sanjay Dutt case, there were 121 accused, 678 witnesses, and 12,000 pages of notes.[3] Do you expect someone like Rawat to cope with such a workload? Perhaps now you are beginning to realize why terrorists in India get off so easily or receive light sentences. Meanwhile, hundreds of children and family members of judges are being groomed for judicial jobs.

Nepotism and Biased Selections

Rawat’s case is now the rule in India’s judiciary rather than the exception. Unlike judicial appointment mechanisms in other democracies — such as the US Senate confirmation process or the UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission — India’s collegium operates without public scrutiny, formal criteria, or external oversight. This lack of transparency allows familial and professional networks to dominate selections, often sidelining diverse or merit-based candidates.

According to data and reports, at one point, 38 percent of the incumbent judges in the Supreme Court had deep family connections in the judiciary and Government, which means 12 of the 32 judges were either related to a former judge or to a political leader.[4]

Similarly, the data on High Court judges reveals entrenched nepotism. In 2018, the Central Government flagged 11 instances of relationships among 33 recommendations for the Allahabad High Court. Mentioning the family connections of many of these candidates with sitting and retired judges, the Government recommended that the apex court collegium disregard all such recommendations and create a level playing field for other competent advocates to make the grade.[5]

Empirical evidence highlights the prevalence of dynastic appointments. A study of Supreme Court judges reveals that many hail from a small pool of influential families, with instances where sons, daughters, or relatives of former judges ascend to high positions.[6] For example, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, son of ex-Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, exemplifies this trend, raising questions about whether merit alone drives such elevations.[7] Likewise, in 2018, senior advocate Indu Malhotra became the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a Supreme Court judge. While her experience and achievements are beyond doubt, it is relevant to mention that her father, Om Prakash Malhotra, was a prominent Supreme Court lawyer.

The term “Uncle Judge Syndrome” has emerged to describe this phenomenon, where judges allegedly favor relatives or connected individuals in appointments and case assignments.[8]

This insularity is compounded by the collegium’s reliance on informal recommendations from bar associations and senior advocates, many of whom belong to the same elite circles. Favoritism manifests in transfers and promotions, where judges perceived as “loyal” to the collegium are rewarded, while dissenters face punitive reassignments.[9]

Such practices not only perpetuate elitism but also discourage diversity, with the underrepresentation of women, backward classes, and other marginalized groups. The collegium’s defenders argue that these connections stem from legacy and competence in a demanding field, but the truth is that without objective evaluations — such as public interviews or performance metrics — nepotism becomes the default explanation for recurring patterns.[10]

This dynamic creates a “closed club” mentality, where appointments resemble inheritances rather than selections based on jurisprudential excellence.

Corruption Within the Judiciary

India’s justice system has over 50 million pending cases — a backlog that could take centuries to clear. Land disputes can take up to 20 years to reach the verdict stage. Hardened criminals get bail easily while judges silence social media users who point out the truth.[11] However, rather than resolve this issue, members of the higher judiciary remain resistant to transparency and accountability.

The Supreme Court’s 2015 rejection of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), enacted by parliament, highlights this intransigence. It upholds a secretive collegium system that shields judges from scrutiny and enables corruption. News reports over the past decade depict a judiciary in crisis, underscoring the urgent need for reform to restore public trust in Indian justice.[12]

Corruption in the judiciary, encompassing bribery, undue influence, and ethical lapses, is inextricably linked to the collegium’s structural deficiencies. The system’s secrecy shields appointments from accountability, allowing potentially compromised individuals to enter the bench.[13] This opacity facilitates “institutional corruption,” where personal interests override public duty.[14]

Says Delhi-based lawyer Robin Bhatt: “Several judges of the high courts had their kith and kin practicing in the courts where their relatives or parents were judges. I think that’s a serious problem, not just in terms of individual success but in the broader perception of the system. When so many judges have their relatives practicing in the same court, even if not the same courtroom, it leads to a real perception of bias which, in turn, is very dangerous for the legal system.”[15]

Notable scandals underscore this issue. In 2025, allegations surfaced against 14 judges involving bribery and favoritism, exposing systemic rot.[16]

The Justice Yashwant Varma controversy highlighted how the collegium’s reluctance to address complaints perpetuates impunity. Varma’s reputation unraveled after sacks of burnt currency notes were discovered at his home on March 14, 2025. Elevated to the Allahabad High Court in 2014 before transferring to Delhi, his career is now under scrutiny not just for the unaccounted cash worth at least Rs 15 crore or US$1.7 million, but for potential favoritism in his rulings.[17]

Post-retirement appointments to tribunals, often seen as rewards for favorable rulings, exacerbate this quid pro quo culture.[18] While the collegium system aims to prevent executive corruption, it has ironically internalized it, as evidenced by delays in filling vacancies and arbitrary rejections of government inputs.^[19]  Former Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia’s admission that the judiciary is not free from corruption further validates these concerns.[20]

Contribution to Overall Corruption in India

The collegium’s issues extend beyond the judiciary, contributing to systemic corruption across Indian institutions. By normalizing opacity and favoritism, it sets a precedent for other sectors, where meritocracy yields to connections.[21]

A corrupt judiciary undermines anti-corruption efforts, as it fails to hold powerful actors accountable, promoting a culture of impunity.[22] In political corruption cases, judicial delays or biased rulings can protect offenders, perpetuating graft in governance.[23]

The system’s elitism also alienates the public, reducing civic engagement and enabling broader malpractices. Economically, a distrusted judiciary deters investment, as businesses fear unfair dispute resolution.[24] Thus, the collegium indirectly amplifies corruption, weakening India’s economy and its democratic fabric.

Erosion of Public Confidence in the Judiciary

Public trust in institutions is foundational to democracy, yet surveys indicate a marked decline in confidence in India’s judiciary, attributable in part to the collegium’s flaws. A 2025 C-Voter survey revealed that only 17 percent of Indians believe the judiciary is transparent, with 44 percent supporting the collegium but a significant portion questioning its fairness.[25]

High-profile cases of nepotism and corruption amplify this distrust. The public perceives the judiciary as an elitist enclave, disconnected from societal realities, leading to cynicism about impartiality.[26]

Delays in justice delivery — exacerbated by unfilled vacancies — and inconsistent rulings further erode faith, as citizens question whether the system serves justice or self-interest. Social media discussions reflect this sentiment, with users decrying the collegium as a source of bias and inefficiency. This loss of confidence manifests in reduced compliance with court orders and increased reliance on extrajudicial mechanisms, threatening the judiciary’s legitimacy.

Can The Judiciary be Trusted to Reform Itself?

In late 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium — comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy, and AS Oka — began deliberating a radical proposal to temporarily halt appointments of High Court judges who are close relatives of sitting or former Supreme Court/High Court judges.[27] This was followed up with a 2025 proposal for rigorous scrutiny of judges’ children, acknowledging their inherent advantages. If implemented, it could expand the talent pool, fostering diversity and countering the legacy bias that dominates current recommendations from High Court Collegiums.

According to lawyer and Member of Parliament Abhishek Singhvi, both proposals under the Supreme Court collegium consideration should be implemented sooner rather than later. “The reality of judicial appointments is much murkier and much much more non-objective than originally conceived. Mutual back scratching, uncle judges, family lineages, etc, demoralize others and bring disrepute to the institution,” he says.[28]

However, he adds that it’s “easier said than done.” “Till now, we are unable to even ban lawyer relatives practicing in the same High Court as judges’ relatives. Time and again, the system has proved stronger than desirable impulses for reform.”

Needed: National Judicial Appointments Commission

In a paper titled ‘Judiciary at the Crossroads – An Eternal Debate on Judicial Appointments,’ lawyers Abhilasha SG and Medha M Puranik point out a stark fact: “India is the only constitutional democracy where the judiciary appoints its own judges.“[29]

Despite having such sweeping autonomy, the original intent of this system, which was to become free of executive control, has not been met. Abhilasha and Puranik elaborate: “The working of the constitution has revealed that the Chief Justices have not been able to hold on against the determined executive action, and even where the Chief Justice is in a position to assert his point of view, he can wholly be subjective in his approach. All these aspects are not conducive to the healthy growth of the judiciary institution. Therefore, there is an urgent need to restructure the prevalent scheme with a new devised model.”

The NJAC, introduced initially via the 99th Constitutional Amendment in 2014 but struck down in 2015, would address the current flaws by creating a balanced, transparent commission for judicial appointments.

• Greater Transparency and Reduced Opacity: The Collegium operates in secrecy, with no public criteria or records for selections. In contrast, NJAC’s structured framework — comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons — ensures open decision-making and public accountability.
• Enhanced Accountability and Prevention of Bias: The Collegium’s closed nature risks nepotism and unqualified appointments, lacking external checks. NJAC introduces diverse stakeholders, including executive and civil society input, to curb biases while maintaining judicial veto power to safeguard independence.
• Improved Efficiency and Reduced Delays: Collegium-induced standoffs between the judiciary and the executive contribute to vacancies and case backlogs. NJAC promotes streamlined processes through collaborative consultations, filling posts faster and addressing pendency.
• Better Balance of Power and Diversity: The Collegium monopolizes appointments, excluding democratic input and failing to represent women and marginalized groups. NJAC restores equilibrium by involving multiple branches of government and eminent persons.

Only through accountable, merit-driven processes can India’s judiciary regain its stature as a pillar of justice, thereby curbing corruption and restoring faith in democratic institutions.

Citations

[1] Decoding the Colloquialism of NJAC vs. Collegium System: The Appointment of Judges in India (LexisNexis India, August 2025) https://www.lexisnexis.in/blogs/njac-vs-collegium-system/

[2] Judiciary at the Crossroads – An Eternal Debate on Judicial Appointments (RostrumLegal, 2015) https://www.rostrumlegal.com/judiciary-at-the-crossroads-an-eternal-debate-on-judicial-appointments/

[3] The Sanjay Dutt Cover-Up (Scribd, 2007) https://www.scribd.com/document/131940574/The-Sanjay-Dutt-Cover-Up-2007

[4] Is There Nepotism in the Judiciary? (TheSupremeRights) https://thesupremerights.com/is-there-nepotism-in-the-judiciary/

[5] Govt Gives Collegium Proof of Nepotism in Picks for HC Judges (Times of India, August 2018) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/govt-gives-collegium-proof-of-nepotism-in-picks-for-hc-judges/articleshow/65220425.cms

[6] There Is More Nepotism in Judiciary Than in … (Reddit, r/IndiaSpeaks) https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/18pro2o/there_is_more_nepotism_in_judiciary_than_in/

[7] Is D.Y. Chandrachud the Current CJI of India a Product of Nepotism in the Indian Judiciary? (Quora) https://www.quora.com/Is-D-Y-Chandrachud-the-current-CJI-of-India-a-product-of-nepotism-in-the-Indian-judiciary

[8] ‘Uncle Judges Syndrome’ Under Fire: Justice Yashwant Varma’s Scandal Ignites Judicial Reform Debate (LawTrend, March 2025) https://lawtrend.in/uncle-judges-syndrome-under-fire-justice-yashwant-varmas-scandal-ignites-judicial-reform-debate/

[9] What Are the Issues Related to the Collegium System? (LawNotes) https://lawnotes.co/tag/what-are-the-issues-related-to-the-collegium-system/

[10] Understanding the Role of Nepotism in India’s Judiciary: A Case for Legacy and Competence (Times of India, September 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/understanding-the-role-of-nepotism-in-indias-judiciary-a-case-for-legacy-and-competence/articleshow/124197988.cms

[11] Why Is Malabar Gold + Diamonds Facing a Boycott on Dhanteras? It Has a Pakistan Link (Hindustan Times, October 2025) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/why-is-malabar-gold-diamonds-facing-a-boycott-on-dhanteras-it-has-a-pakistan-link-101760772036123.html

[12] Exposed: Rampant Corruption and Opacity in Judiciary — A Decade of Scandals and Resistance to Reform (TheSquirrels, August 2025) https://thesquirrels.in/governance/exposed-rampant-corruption-and-opacity-in-judiciary-a-decade-of-scandals-and-resistance-to-reform-9757225

[13] Judicial Corruption in India (PWOnlyIAS, March 2025) https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/judicial-corruption-in-india/

[14] Judicial Accountability and Independence in India, Article 23(1):160 (Oxford University Press – ICON Journal, May 2025) https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/23/1/160/8148805

[15] As SC Collegium Considers Proposal to Tackle Nepotism, How the Bar Views the Possible Move (ThePrint, January 2025) https://theprint.in/judiciary/as-sc-collegium-considers-proposal-to-tackle-nepotism-how-the-bar-views-the-possible-move/2430971/

[16] Exposed: Rampant Corruption and Opacity in Judiciary — A Decade of Scandals and Resistance to Reform (TheSquirrels, August 2025) https://thesquirrels.in/governance/exposed-rampant-corruption-and-opacity-in-judiciary-a-decade-of-scandals-and-resistance-to-reform-9757225

[17] ‘Uncle Judges Syndrome’ Under Fire: Justice Yashwant Varma’s Scandal Ignites Judicial Reform Debate (LawTrend, March 2025) https://lawtrend.in/uncle-judges-syndrome-under-fire-justice-yashwant-varmas-scandal-ignites-judicial-reform-debate/

[18] Judicial Nepotism, Post-Retirement Appointments and the Question of Judicial Accountability in India (Boloji, October 2025) https://www.boloji.com/articles/54760/judicial-nepotism-post-retirement-appointments-and-the-question-of-judicial-accountability-in-india

[19] A Crack in the Collegium’s Wall of Secrecy (SCObserver Journal, September 2025) https://www.scobserver.in/journal/a-crack-in-the-collegiums-wall-of-secrecy/

[20] Judicial Appointment, Accountability and Constitutional Obligation of Judges in India (ResearchGate, August 2022) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362540058_Judicial_Appointment_Accountability_and_Constitutional_obligation_of_Judges_in_India_Judicial_Appointment_Accountability_and_Constitutional_Obligation_of_Judges_in_India

[21] Judiciary at the Crossroads – An Eternal Debate on Judicial Appointments (RostrumLegal, 2015) https://www.rostrumlegal.com/judiciary-at-the-crossroads-an-eternal-debate-on-judicial-appointments/

[22] Bollywood & Judiciary: Do They Work by the Same Merit System? (LinkedIn Article, January 2023) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bollywood-judiciary-work-same-merit-system-varma-ex-ias-vr–w9qmc

[23] Bollywood & Judiciary: Do They Work by the Same Merit System? (LinkedIn Article, August 2024) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bollywood-judiciary-work-same-merit-system-varma-ex-ias-vr–w9qmc

[24] Efficacy of the Collegium System (JurisCentre Blog, January 2023) https://juriscentre.com/2023/01/17/efficacy-of-the-collegium-system/

[25] Debate on India’s Judicial Appointment System: Collegium vs Commission (YouTube Video) https://youtu.be/0C18MChNq7M?si=GRLkpPPaDW3HjMFk

[26] Corruption, Misconduct in Judiciary Have Negative Impact on Public Confidence: CJI (Deccan Herald, June 2025) https://www.deccanherald.com/india/corruption-misconduct-in-judiciary-have-negative-impact-on-public-confidence-cji-3570603

[27] In a First, SC Collegium Starts Interacting with Lawyers Backed for HC Judgeship (Times of India, December 2024) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-a-first-sc-collegium-starts-interacting-with-lawyers-backed-for-hc-judgeship/articleshow/116780474.cms

[28] Abhishek Singhvi Backs SC Collegium Move Against Appointing Judges’ Kin (Hindustan Times, January 2025) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/abhishek-singhvi-backs-sc-collegium-move-against-appointing-judges-kin-101735717353028.html

[29] Judiciary at the Crossroads – An Eternal Debate on Judicial Appointments (RostrumLegal, 2015) https://www.rostrumlegal.com/judiciary-at-the-crossroads-an-eternal-debate-on-judicial-appointments/