Justice Dipankar Datta: Debunks 'Judges Appoint Judges' Myth

• Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta declared the claim of 'judges appointing judges' a myth, attributing its propagation to vested interests and motivated narratives.
• Justice Datta criticized the government for selectively clearing proposals made by the Collegium for judicial appointments.
• His observations were made during a hearing on petitions challenging a 2023 law that increased the Executive's influence in selecting Election Commission of India members.
• He clarified that the Collegium system involves a detailed consultative process between the government and the judiciary, not a unilateral decision.

Justice Datta explicitly labeled the phrase 'judges appoint judges' as a 'myth,' asserting that this narrative has been propagated by 'vested interests' through 'motivated narratives.'

Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta recently challenged the widely circulated notion that judges unilaterally appoint their successors in India. Speaking on Wednesday, Justice Datta explicitly labeled the phrase 'judges appoint judges' as a 'myth,' asserting that this narrative has been propagated by 'vested interests' through 'motivated narratives.' He further indicated that such claims often draw strength from 'certain controversial decisions taken in this century' concerning judicial appointments, thereby debunking a long-standing misconception about the judiciary's role.

Justice Datta's remarks came during proceedings where he addressed a submission from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The hearing pertained to a series of petitions contesting a 2023 legislative act. This particular law significantly increased the Executive's influence in the selection process for members of the Election Commission of India (ECI), sparking considerable debate regarding the Executive role in ECI appointments.

A central concern raised by the petitioners revolved around the perceived dominance of the government Executive within the panel responsible for appointing ECI members. In response to these apprehensions, the Central government had put forth an argument suggesting a parallel: that even within the existing Collegium system for judicial appointments, sitting judges wield a predominant influence in selecting future judges. Justice Datta, however, took strong exception to this comparison, using the opportunity to clarify the actual mechanics of judicial selection.

Justice Datta's intervention provides critical insight into the functioning of the Indian Supreme Court Collegium system, directly addressing the "Justice Dipankar Datta judges appoint judges myth." He underscored that the process of appointing judges is far from a unilateral judicial decision. Instead, it involves a detailed consultative mechanism between the government and the judiciary, a crucial aspect often overlooked in public discourse. This consultative framework, he explained, is integral to every judicial appointment made under the Collegium system.

His criticism extended to the government's practice of "Government selective Collegium clearing," where proposals for judicial appointments are not uniformly processed. By highlighting this selective approach, Justice Datta implicitly pointed to an area of potential executive overreach or undue influence within the appointment system. The Justice's statement refutes the "sweeping generalisation" that the Collegium operates as "a law unto itself," emphasizing the constitutional design that mandates a collaborative, albeit sometimes contentious, interaction between the two branches of government.

The broader context of the hearing, involving the 2023 law that grants the Executive more power in ECI selections, underscores the ongoing "India judicial independence debate." Petitioners in that case expressed significant concerns about the government Executive's increased dominance in the ECI selection panel. The government's attempt to draw a parallel with the Collegium system, suggesting judicial appointments also involve a 'judges appointing judges' scenario, was directly challenged by Justice Datta, who sought to correct what he views as a fundamental misrepresentation of the judicial appointment process.

Justice Dipankar Datta's recent remarks carry significant weight for the ongoing discourse surrounding judicial appointments and the delicate balance of power in India. By unequivocally stating that the "judges appoint judges" narrative is a "myth," he has provided a clear judicial perspective on a contentious issue that frequently surfaces in discussions about the "Indian Supreme Court Collegium criticism." His assertion that this narrative is fueled by "vested interests" and "motivated narratives" suggests a deliberate attempt to misinform the public about the judiciary's role.

The Justice's pointed criticism of the government for "selectively clearing Collegium proposals" further illuminates the complexities and potential friction points within the appointment process. This selective approach, he implied, can undermine the efficiency and independence of judicial appointments, raising questions about the Executive's commitment to the Collegium's recommendations. Such actions contribute to the broader "India judicial independence debate," where the boundaries of executive and judicial authority are constantly tested.

His clarification that a "detailed consultative process" is inherent in the Collegium system, rather than it being a self-serving entity, is crucial. It counters the perception that the judiciary operates in isolation, reinforcing the constitutional mandate for interaction between the government and the judiciary. This judicial perspective, particularly from a Supreme Court Justice, offers valuable insight for legal professionals navigating constitutional law and public interest litigation concerning the separation of powers.

This statement by Justice Datta provides a clear judicial perspective on the 'judges appointing judges' narrative and the executive's role in the Collegium system, offering critical insight for lawyers advising on constitutional law, public interest litigation, or matters concerning judicial independence and the separation of powers in India.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources