Judiciary Gets Transparent: Who Are the 221 Judges Appointed by the Collegium?

In a landmark move that signals a shift toward greater transparency, the Supreme Court Collegium has published a list of 221 High Court judges, complete with disclosures on category (caste), gender, and family background. This is the first time the judiciary has openly shared such detailed information about judicial appointments, sparking discussions across legal, political, and civil society circles.

A Glimpse into the Judiciary’s Inner Workings

The Indian judiciary has long been criticized for its opaque appointment process. Until recently, judicial appointments—especially at the High Court and Supreme Court levels—were handled largely behind closed doors through the Collegium system, with minimal public accountability.

But now, the decision to publish caste/category classifications (General, SC, ST, OBC, Minority), gender representation (male/female), and familial ties to the legal fraternity offers the public a rare look into who gets to sit on the bench—and how.

What the Numbers Say

Out of the 221 judges recommended by the Collegium:

• Category Breakdown: A significant percentage belong to the General category, but there is visible representation from SCs, STs, OBCs, and Minority communities.
• Gender Disparity: The data shows a glaring underrepresentation of women—less than 15% of the total appointments.
• Family Connections: Several appointees were found to have close relatives in the judiciary or legal profession, reigniting debates over nepotism in judicial appointments.

Why This Matters

Transparency in judicial appointments is essential for:

1. Diversity: A more inclusive judiciary is better equipped to understand and interpret laws fairly across diverse populations.
2. Accountability: Knowing who is appointed and why builds trust in the judicial system.
3. Merit vs Influence: Open disclosures can help ensure that merit, not merely connections, determines one’s rise in the legal profession.

Critics Speak Up

While many have lauded this initiative, critics argue that disclosure alone isn't enough. They demand institutional reform—including broader participation from civil society in the appointment process and the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission with checks and balances.

The Way Forward

The release of this list may just be the beginning. If sustained and institutionalized, this move could lead to a judiciary that is more reflective of India's social fabric, and more resilient against bias and elite capture.

In a country where access to justice is often unequal, this step is a small but crucial push in the right direction.

Closing Note:
While the debate on the Collegium system is far from over, this disclosure offers hope. It shows that even in one of India's most conservative institutions, change—however slow—is possible.