In News:

A recent Private Member’s Bill in Parliament has proposed constitutional amendments to promote diversity in higher judicial appointments and to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court. The proposals revive longstanding debates on judicial independence, social representation and access to justice within India’s constitutional framework.

Constitutional Framework of Judicial Appointments

The Constitution lays down a consultative model for appointing judges. Under Article 124, judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Article 217 governs High Court appointments, requiring consultation with the CJI, the Governor and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Article 130 provides that the seat of the Supreme Court shall be in Delhi or any other place decided by the CJI with Presidential approval.

Originally, appointments were executive-led with judicial consultation. However, concerns over safeguarding judicial independence led to a shift in power towards the judiciary.

Evolution of the Collegium System

The collegium system emerged through judicial interpretation:

• First Judges Case (1981): Upheld executive primacy.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Established judicial primacy in appointments.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Clarified collegium composition and functioning.

The Supreme Court collegium comprises the CJI and four senior-most judges; for High Courts, the CJI and two senior-most judges. The government may return recommendations once, but if reiterated, it is bound to appoint.

In 2014, Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), including judicial and executive members. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, holding that judicial independence is part of the basic structure. Consequently, the collegium system continues, despite criticism regarding opacity, lack of accountability and allegations of nepotism.

Diversity in the Higher Judiciary

The present debate focuses on under-representation of marginalised groups. Between 2018 and 2024, roughly 20% of appointees to the higher judiciary reportedly belonged to SC, ST and OBC communities. Women constitute less than 15% of appointments, and religious minorities less than 5%.

The Bill proposes constitutionally mandating due representation for SCs, STs, OBCs, women and religious minorities in proportion to their population. This marks a shift from a purely merit-centric approach to a socially representative model.

The issue implicates two constitutional values:

1. Judicial Independence – protecting courts from external influence.
2. Substantive Equality and Social Justice – ensuring institutions reflect India’s pluralism.

A diverse judiciary may enhance public confidence, enrich constitutional interpretation and improve sensitivity in adjudication.

Proposal for Regional Benches

The Bill also proposes regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. Currently, the Court sits only in Delhi. With pendency exceeding 90,000 cases (January 2026), litigants from distant States face cost and accessibility barriers.

The proposed benches would exercise full jurisdiction except for constitutional matters, which would remain with the Constitution Bench in Delhi. Notably, under Article 130, such benches can be established by the CJI with Presidential approval without constitutional amendment. Law Commission reports and parliamentary committees have previously recommended similar measures.

Way Forward

Ensuring diversity primarily rests with reforms within the collegium—greater transparency, objective criteria and publicly available data can strengthen legitimacy. A future model may consider a broad-based appointments commission balancing independence and accountability, drawing from comparative experiences such as the U.K. and South Africa.

On regional benches, a phased approach could improve access to justice and reduce pendency while preserving institutional coherence. Ultimately, reforms must harmonise independence, equality and efficiency within the constitutional scheme.