A recent report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has expressed serious concerns regarding the state of judicial independence in India, pointing to increasing executive interference, a lack of transparency in judicial appointments, and weak accountability mechanisms.
Titled Judicial Independence in India: Tipping the Scale, the report provides a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional basis, legal framework, and jurisprudence governing the judiciary’s independence. According to the report, in the past decade (2014–2024), India’s judiciary has faced “retrogressive developments in respect of judicial independence.” While the judiciary remains constitutionally independent, the report states that its autonomy is increasingly being compromised by “significant scope for external, including executive influence.”
The ICJ, a global non-profit organization comprising eminent judges and lawyers, is committed to promoting and safeguarding human rights through the rule of law. According to its website, the Geneva-based organization operates across five continents.
One of the report’s main findings highlights the lack of objective and transparent criteria for judicial appointments in India. The Collegium system, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior Supreme Court judges, was intended to preserve judicial independence. However, the report criticizes it for lacking “a clear and transparent procedure of selection and of objective and predetermined criteria based on competence, merit, ability, experience, and integrity.” The report further states that the absence of such safeguards leaves room for appointments made through “improper means and motive.”
Despite being constitutionally insulated from political influence, the judiciary has been subjected to increasing executive interference in judicial appointments, according to the report. It states that the government “exercises an effective veto power on recommendations made by the Collegium, allowing the executive a determinative role in the composition of the higher judiciary.” This dynamic has resulted in a growing standoff between the government and the Supreme Court, with key judicial recommendations facing delays or outright rejection.
Another critical issue identified in the report is the transfer of judges between High Courts, which does not require the consent of the affected judge. Transfers are often justified under broad terms such as “public interest” or “better administration of justice.” However, the ICJ report criticizes this process for its lack of transparency. It states that “transfers proceed on vague and overbroad criteria…often making it impossible to distinguish between transfers being used as disguised sanction, transfers intended to be punitive or retaliatory, and transfers for the better administration of justice.”
The report also addresses the removal or impeachment process for judges, where the legislature plays a key role. According to the ICJ, this process does not conform to international legal standards, which recommend that “the power of removal should be vested with an independent body composed of a majority of judges and not with either the legislature or executive.”
In addition to impeachment, the only other form of judicial accountability in India is the ‘In-House Procedure.’ However, the report criticizes this system, stating that it “is not provided for in statutory law” and “is not based on any articulated rules or norms of judicial conduct that serve as a substantive basis to determine misconduct.” The lack of transparency in this mechanism, the ICJ argues, makes “real accountability near impossible.”
Another major concern outlined in the report is the post-retirement employment of judges. The report states that the absence of regulations governing post-retirement jobs has led to “a shadow of perception of bias on the concerned judge while at the same time allowing for indirect executive influence over the judge while in office.” This issue has long been debated in India, as several retired judges have been appointed to government positions soon after leaving office. This has raised concerns that some judicial decisions may be influenced by the possibility of post-retirement rewards.
The report also examines the listing and allocation of cases within the Supreme Court. While these processes are governed by formal rules, they largely remain at the discretion of the Chief Justice of India. The report highlights that “instances of irregular listing and allocation, presumably at the discretion of the Chief Justice, have given rise to seemingly arbitrary exercise of power… at times in a manner that suits the government.”
In response to these concerns, the ICJ has put forth several recommendations. One of the key proposals is the establishment of a Judicial Council to oversee judicial appointments, ensuring that selections are made based on objective and predetermined criteria while also promoting transparency and diversity. The report further recommends the implementation of a binding code of judicial conduct to enhance accountability, along with the creation of a statutory mechanism for addressing misconduct that operates independently of both the executive and legislature.
The ICJ also calls for clear regulations on post-retirement employment, including the introduction of a mandatory cooling-off period to prevent conflicts of interest. Additionally, it suggests reforms in the judicial transfer process to enhance transparency and prevent its misuse as a disciplinary tool.
Another recommendation involves improving transparency in case allocation, ensuring that listing decisions are made in a fair and impartial manner. The report emphasizes the need for reforms to protect the judiciary’s independence and maintain public confidence in India’s legal system.
The findings of the ICJ report highlight significant challenges to the independence of India’s judiciary. The growing executive influence over judicial appointments, lack of transparent accountability mechanisms, and concerns surrounding post-retirement employment underscore the urgent need for reforms. The proposed recommendations aim to strengthen judicial independence and ensure that India’s judiciary remains free from undue external influence.
