**Executive Summary**
This document is the answer to Unstarred Question No. †1269 in Lok Sabha on February 6th, 2026, regarding the adverse effects of the collegium system. It addresses concerns about nepotism, transparency, and equal opportunity in judicial appointments. The response clarifies the constitutional provisions for judicial appointments and outlines steps taken to enhance social diversity in the judiciary.
**Key Points / Main Content**
* **Constitutional Basis for Appointments:**
* Appointments of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made under Articles 124, 217, and 224 of the Constitution of India.
* The Constitution does not provide for reservation for any caste or class of persons in judicial appointments.
* **Data on Social Representation (2018-2026):**
* Category-wise data pertaining to the representation of any caste or class of persons among the Judges of Supreme Court and the High Courts is not centrally available.
* Since 2018, recommendees for High Court Judges are required to provide social background details.
* Out of 848 Judges appointed from 2018 to 02.02.2026:
* 33 belong to SC category.
* 17 belong to ST category.
* 104 belong to OBC category.
* 46 belong to the minority category.
* 130 women were appointed as Judges in various High Courts.
* **Appointment Process and Diversity Enhancement:**
* Initiation of appointment proposals:
* Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India
* High Courts: Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
* The Government is committed to enhancing social diversity in the judiciary.
* High Court Chief Justices are requested to give due consideration to candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities, and Women.
* Only persons recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium are appointed as Judges.
**Impact Analysis**
**Stakeholder: Government of India**
* **Impact:** The government is responsible for addressing concerns raised about the collegium system and ensuring adherence to constitutional provisions in judicial appointments.
* **Action Required:** Continue to request the High Court Chief Justices to provide diversity in recommendations for judge appointments.
**Stakeholder: Chief Justice of India and High Court Chief Justices**
* **Impact:** Responsible for initiating proposals for the appointment of Judges in their respective courts.
* **Action Required:** To consider suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women to ensure social diversity in the appointment of Judges.
**Stakeholder: SC, ST, OBC, Minority Advocates and Women Lawyers**
* **Impact:** The focus on enhancing social diversity aims to provide more opportunities for advocates from these groups to be considered for judicial appointments.
* **Action Required:** Advocate must participate and seek opportunities for judicial appointment.
**Stakeholder: Supreme Court Collegium**
* **Impact:** Retains the authority to recommend candidates for judicial appointments.
* **Action Required:** To continue recommending suitable candidates for judicial appointments, with an understanding of the diversity-related requests from the government.
Key Entities Referenced
Collegium System: A system under which judges are appointed by judges themselves.
Constitution of India: Referenced for Articles 124, 217 and 224 regarding the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Supreme Court: Mentioned regarding the appointment of judges and the functioning of the collegium system.
High Courts: Mentioned regarding the appointment of judges and the functioning of the collegium system.
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): A document outlining the responsibility for initiating proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. †1269
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 06th FEBRUARY, 2026
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE COLLEGIUM SYSTEM
†1269. Shri Murari Lal Meena:
Will the Minister of Law and Justice be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Government is aware that about 33 per cent of the Supreme
Court and 50 per cent of the Judges of High Court belong to the family members
who have previously held high positions in the judiciary, if so, the details thereof;
(b) whether the above situation has arisen mainly due to the collegium system
under which judges are appointed by judges themselves, if so, whether it adversely
affects the principles of transparency and equal opportunity, if so, the details
thereof;
(c) whether the Government has any official data regarding the generational
(first generation/second generation) background of judges appointed to the High
Courts and the Supreme Court, if so, the details thereof; and
(d) the steps being taken by the Government to ensure transparency, fairness
and equal opportunities to ST, SC and OBC advocates in the judicial appointment
process?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY
OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)
(a) to (d): Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is made
under Articles 124, 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India, which do not provide
for reservation for any caste or class of persons. Therefore, category-wise data: 2 :
pertaining to representation of any caste or class of persons among the Judges of
Supreme Court and the High Courts is not centrally available. Since 2018, the
recommendees for the post of High Court Judges are required to provide details
regarding their social background in the prescribed format (prepared in
consultation with the Supreme Court). As per the information provided by the
recommendees, out of 848 Judges appointed from 2018 till 02.02.2026, 33 belong
to SC category, 17 belong to ST category, 104 belong to OBC category and 46
belong to the minority category. 130 women were appointed as Judges in various
High Courts during the same period.
As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the responsibility for
initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court vests with
the Chief Justice of India, while the responsibility for initiation of proposals for
appointment of Judges in the High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the
concerned High Court. However, the Government is committed to enhancing
social diversity in judiciary and has been requesting the Chief Justices of High
Courts that while sending proposals for appointment of Judges, due consideration
be given to suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Other Backward Classes, Minorities and Women to ensure social diversity in the
appointment of Judges in High Courts. Only those persons who are recommended
by the Supreme Court Collegium, are appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts.
***