Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
Article 50 directs separation of judiciary from executive. The collegium system for judicial appointments, though not explicitly mentioned in Constitution, is justified as essential for judicial independence. Which criticism of collegium system is MOST valid from constitutional perspective?
- It ensures complete independence of judiciary from all accountability
- It lacks transparency, objective criteria, and institutionalized consultation, potentially undermining accountability
- It gives excessive power to executive in judicial appointments
- It violates federal principles by centralizing all judicial appointments
Answer: It lacks transparency, objective criteria, and institutionalized consultation, potentially undermining accountability
Article 50 judicial independence and collegium system: (a) Article 50 text: State shall take steps to separate judiciary from executive in public services of State, (b) Collegium system justification: (i) Judicial independence: Collegium (CJI + senior judges) recommends appointments to protect judiciary from executive influence, bias, (ii) Constitutional interpretation: Supreme Court (NJAC judgment, 2015) held judicial independence part of basic structure; collegium preserves independence better than executive-dominated alternatives, (iii) Comparative practice: Many democracies have judicial councils, independent appointment mechanisms to balance independence, accountability, (c) Valid criticism: (i) Lack of transparency: Collegium deliberations not public; criteria for selection not always clear, raising accountability concerns, (ii) Objective criteria: Absence of standardized evaluation framework for judicial appointments; reliance on seniority, reputation may overlook merit, diversity, (iii) Institutionalized consultation: Limited formal consultation with executive, bar, civil society; could enhance legitimacy, inclusiveness of appointments, (d) Contrast with other options: (i) Complete independence from accountability: Not accurate; judiciary subject to constitutional limits, impeachment process, public scrutiny, (ii) Excessive executive power: Collegium was established to reduce executive influence; criticism is opposite — too little executive role, not too much, (iii) Federal centralization: Higher judiciary appointments are Union subject; collegium does not violate federal principles per se, (e) Reform proposals: (i) Transparency measures: Publishing criteria, reasons for selections could enhance accountability without compromising independence, (ii) Consultation mechanisms: Formalized consultation with executive, bar, civil society could improve legitimacy, diversity of perspectives, (iii) Institutional support: Secretariat, research support for collegium could improve decision-making quality, efficiency, (f) Illustrates calibrated independence: Article 50 operationalized through collegium system; balance between judicial independence, accountability, transparency essential for realizing constitutional vision of impartial, effective justice system.