The judiciary is the ultimate refuge of Indian democracy. Even when the legislature and the executive fail, people turn to the courts in the hope of securing justice. The foundation of this trust is judicial independence. However, it is time for the judiciary to recognize an equally important truth: independence does not mean the absence of accountability. The recent case of Arvind Malhotra, a judicial officer from Himachal Pradesh who sought to know why he was overlooked for elevation to the High Court while his juniors were recommended, has once again brought this issue into focus. This is not merely a case of perceived injustice to one individual. It raises a much larger question about whether the system of judicial appointments truly conforms to democratic principles.

The framers of the Indian Constitution ensured that the judiciary would enjoy institutional independence. However, they did not lay down a comprehensive procedure for the appointment of judges. Article 217 of the Constitution specifies only the qualifications required to become a High Court judge. It does not explain how one eligible candidate should be chosen over another or what weight should be given to different criteria. This constitutional gap was later filled by the Collegium system, which evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments.

However, a system that was created to protect judicial independence has gradually come to be criticized as an opaque and closed mechanism. Former Supreme Court judge Justice J. Chelameswar's observations remain highly relevant even today. While expressing his dissent and calling for the disclosure of the minutes of Collegium meetings, he remarked that "a system without transparency eventually loses public confidence." His message was clear: respect for the judiciary is earned not merely through authority, but through credibility.

Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee was also a strong supporter of judicial independence. At the same time, he repeatedly argued that the Collegium system should become more transparent. According to him, preventing political interference in judicial appointments is undoubtedly essential, but it is equally important to strengthen public confidence by providing reasons for important decisions.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur has, on several occasions, emphasized the need for a permanent secretariat to improve the institutional functioning of the Collegium. At present, the composition of the Collegium changes whenever judges retire, leading to a loss of continuity and institutional memory. A permanent secretariat, he argued, could systematically maintain records relating to the service history, professional performance, complaints, and achievements of candidates, thereby ensuring that appointments are made on the basis of consistent standards.

Former Chief Justice of India Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah has also repeatedly emphasized that while judicial independence is indispensable, transparency is equally essential. In a democracy, he argued, no constitutional institution should remain completely beyond public scrutiny. His observations continue to be highly relevant in the present context.

Renowned jurist Fali S. Nariman defended the Collegium system but candidly admitted that it was "not a perfect system." He maintained that although the Collegium was preferable to executive dominance in judicial appointments, it certainly had shortcomings that required meaningful internal reforms.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph has similarly argued that judicial appointments should take into account not only professional merit but also social diversity, regional balance, and adequate representation of women. According to him, the judiciary must reflect the diversity of society rather than remain confined to a few privileged sections.

Several scholarly articles published in leading legal journals such as the Indian Law Review, the National Law School of India Review, and the Journal of Indian Law and Society have consistently emphasized the same principle. While the personal deliberations of judges may legitimately remain confidential, the criteria governing judicial appointments should be publicly known. These studies point out that decisions made without recorded reasons, however fair they may actually be, inevitably generate public suspicion.

International experience also reinforces this view. Judicial appointment systems in the United Kingdom through the Judicial Appointments Commission, in South Africa through the Judicial Service Commission, and in Canada have successfully sought to balance judicial independence with transparency. Publicly declared selection criteria, structured evaluation processes, and institutionally managed appointment procedures are common features of these systems. India need not replicate these models in their entirety, but there are certainly valuable lessons that can be learned from them.

When the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), it made one important point very clear. While rejecting any arrangement that could compromise judicial independence, the Court simultaneously directed that the Memorandum of Procedure governing judicial appointments should be revised to improve transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, those reforms remain incomplete even after several years.

What is required today is not a radical overhaul of the system but a series of practical institutional reforms. First, the Collegium should officially publish the criteria it follows while selecting judges. Second, candidates who are overlooked should at least receive a broad explanation of why they were not selected. Third, a permanent secretariat should be established to preserve institutional memory and ensure continuity in the appointment process. Fourth, there should be a clearly defined mechanism to examine objections or complaints relating to candidates. Finally, policy guidelines should ensure adequate representation of women, socially disadvantaged communities, and different regions in the higher judiciary.

Every constitutional institution in a democracy ultimately rests upon public trust. This principle applies with even greater force to the judiciary. One of the fundamental principles of justice is that every judge must provide reasons for every judicial decision. The same principle should apply to the institution that appoints judges. Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to have been done.

Protecting judicial independence is undoubtedly essential. Equally important, however, is preserving public confidence in the judiciary. Such confidence is strengthened not through secrecy but through transparency; not through authority alone but through accountability. The sooner the Collegium system recognizes this reality, the stronger the Indian judiciary will become. Judicial independence has no substitute. But transparency is what gives independence its credibility. That alone is the true strength of democracy and the rule of law.