Bengaluru, March 22 Former Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, said on Sunday that the collegium system is the best suited for India, at least for now.
He also emphasized that the government should seriously consider the national litigation policy aimed at reducing court backlog.
Gavai made these remarks during the concluding session of the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference – 2026, titled "Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice."
"There have been concerns raised about the functioning of the collegium. I don't say that the collegium system is foolproof. There can't be a perfect system. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. But after working for so many years, I believe that the collegium system is the best suited for our country, at least for now," Gavai said.
He explained that the collegium doesn't operate arbitrarily. The names of the judges are recommended by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the collegium of the two most senior judges, and then it goes to the central government.
"The input from the central government, the intelligence department, and everyone is gathered, and then the Supreme Court Collegium makes the final decision. Even after the names are sent, if the government or the executive has any concerns, those concerns are addressed to the collegium. The collegium considers those concerns, and then makes a final decision," he added.
Speaking about the significant gap between the sanctioned strength and the number of appointments for high court judges, Gavai stated that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, ruled that, on the second reiteration, the executive is bound to make the appointments.
"But I regret to say that there are various names that, even on the second recommendation, haven't been cleared by the executive. So, it's not a blame game, but I must bring this issue to the attention of the Bar," he said.
The executive needs to consider whether they are bound by the two Supreme Court judgments, which state that on a second recommendation, appointments must be made, he further added.
Noting that he has always maintained that High Court judges are equal to Supreme Court judges, Justice Gavai, while speaking on the transfer of judges, said that both are constitutional functionaries, but certain issues require transfers.
"I ask a question: if a particular judge defies the judgments of the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, and takes a view contrary to the views explained by the Supreme Court in a particular matter, should the collegium remain idle or take corrective steps? Since the Bar is the mother of the judges, I must put this issue with the Bar," he added.
Stating that as a judge, he has always been in favor of maintaining a balance between the protection of the environment and sustainable development, the former CJI said that courts don't interfere in environmental matters just for the sake of interference; in fact, it is because of court judgments that the forests in the country are protected.
"It is because of the Supreme Court judgment that issues regarding pollution have been addressed. But I am not willing to accept the criticism that, in such matters, the judiciary acts as a stumbling block."
"Whenever necessary, the judiciary has interfered, but wherever the court has found the balance between environmental concern and sustainable development, the court has always ruled in favour of it," he said.
In cases where bail is granted after a person is incarcerated for more than 70 per cent of the sentence, the state routinely challenges the bail order. "So, the question will have to be asked as to who is also equally responsible for the huge pendency," he asked.
There has been talk about the national litigation policy for years, but it is yet to come, he further said. "I think if the executive does something to implement or come up with the national litigation policy, it may really help in reducing the pendency."
The former CJI said that the courts always exercise restraint, and they exercise powers when they find that the fundamental rights of citizens are violated; or when the balance between the powers assigned to the executive, the judiciary, and the parliament is sought to be disturbed.
"When the executive, with its mighty hand, bulldozes the houses of citizens, on the suspicion that he is a criminal, is the judiciary expected to sit silently and permit the executive to go ahead with such an act, which hits at the rule of law? That's a question which is to be considered," he said.
Gavai said that the vision of 'Viksit Bharat' should be to balance development along with balancing the rule of law.