A recent report by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has raised serious concerns about the state of judicial independence in India, referring to increasing executive interference, lack of transparency in appointments, and weak accountability mechanisms. The report titled ‘Judicial Independence in India: Tipping the Scale’, provides a detailed analysis of the Constitutional basis, legal framework, and the jurisprudence governing judicial independence. The report says that over the past decade (2014–2024), the Indian judiciary has experienced “retrogressive developments in respect of judicial independence”, and that though India’s judiciary remains constitutionally independent, its autonomy is increasingly being undermined by "significant scope for external, including executive influence."
ICJ is a global non-profit organisation of eminent judges and lawyers, and it is dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights through the rule of law, according to the organisation’s website. It’s headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland and works across five continents.
One of the report’s key findings is that there is a lack of objective and transparent criteria for judicial appointments in India. While the Collegium system – consisting of the Chief Justice of India and four senior Supreme Court judges – was designed to protect judicial independence, the report states that it lacks "a clear and transparent procedure of selection and of objective and predetermined criteria based on competence, merit, ability, experience and integrity." The absence of these safeguards, it states, leaves room for appointments based on "improper means and motive."
The report also says that despite being constitutionally insulated from political influence, the judiciary has found itself increasingly subject to executive interference in judicial appointments. The report states that the government "exercises an effective veto power on recommendations made by the Collegium, allowing the executive a determinative role in the composition of the higher judiciary." This has resulted in a growing standoff between the government and the Supreme Court, with key judicial recommendations being either delayed or blocked outright.
Another pressing issue flagged in the report is the transfer of judges between High Courts, which does not require the consent of the affected judge. Transfers are often justified under ambiguous terms such as “public interest” or “better administration of justice”, but the ICJ report criticises the process for its opacity. It stated that "transfers proceed on vague and overbroad criteria…often making it impossible to distinguish between transfers being used as disguised sanction, transfers intended to be punitive or retaliatory, and transfers for the better administration of justice."
The report has also found that the removal or impeachment of judges – a process where the legislative has a say – does not align with international law standards, which recommend that "the power of removal should be vested with an independent body composed of a majority of judges and not with either the legislature or executive."
Apart from impeachment, the only other existing judicial accountability measure is the ‘In-House Procedure’, which the report states "is not provided for in statutory law" and that "it is not based on any articulated rules or norms of judicial conduct that serve as a substantive basis to determine misconduct." This lack of transparency, the ICJ says, makes "real accountability near impossible."
Another issue that threatens judicial independence is the post-retirement employment of judges, according to the report. It notes that the lack of regulation in this area allows for "a shadow of perception of bias on the concerned judge while at the same time allowing for indirect executive influence over the judge while in office." This has been a longstanding issue in India, with many retired judges being appointed to government positions shortly after leaving office, raising concerns that some judicial decisions may be influenced by the expectation of post-retirement rewards.
The report also takes a look at the listing and allocation of cases within the Supreme Court, which, while governed by formal rules, remains largely under the discretion of the Chief Justice of India. It highlights that "instances of irregular listing and allocation, presumably at the discretion of the Chief Justice, have given rise to seemingly arbitrary exercise of power… at times in a manner that suits the government."
The ICJ has also made several recommendations, including that of the establishment of a Judicial Council to oversee judicial appointments based on objective and predetermined criteria, ensuring transparency and diversity. A binding code of judicial conduct to improve accountability and a statutory mechanism for addressing misconduct, independent of both the executive and legislature. Clear regulations on post-retirement employment, including a cooling-off period to prevent conflicts of interest, and reformation of the judicial transfer process, ensuring transparency and preventing its misuse as a disciplinary tool. It also recommends greater transparency in the allocation of cases, ensuring that decisions on case listings are made in a fair and impartial manner.