The Supreme Court’s latest observation that “we don’t want to open a Pandora’s box with regard to the proceedings of the collegium” may have been made in the context of a Himachal Pradesh judicial officer challenging his non-elevation to the High Court. Yet, the statement has inadvertently reopened a much larger debate: if the collegium itself is a Pandora’s box, why should it remain beyond scrutiny? That is the question troubling many Indians today. The judiciary, one of the three pillars of Indian democracy, derives its strength not from force but from public trust. However, trust cannot survive in an environment where transparency is absent and accountability is selectively applied. The petition before the Supreme Court was straightforward. A senior judicial officer alleged that officers junior to him were recommended for elevation to the Himachal Pradesh High Court while his candidature was overlooked. The court rightly observed that seniority alone cannot be the sole criterion for appointment and that the collegium exercises subjective satisfaction in such matters. Fair enough. But the bigger issue is not whether one individual deserved elevation or not. The bigger question is whether a constitutional mechanism that virtually decides the future of the judiciary can continue to function without meaningful transparency. If the judiciary itself says opening the collegium’s workings would amount to opening a “Pandora’s box”, what message does it send to ordinary citizens? Is it an admission that the process is too sensitive to withstand public scrutiny? Or does it imply that the system has become so opaque that examining it may expose uncomfortable truths? The collegium system was never explicitly envisaged in the Constitution. It evolved through judicial interpretations and gradually transformed into a mechanism where judges appoint judges. For years, critics have argued that while the intention may have been to preserve judicial independence, it has also inadvertently created an exclusive club that is accountable to nobody. No institution in a democracy can seek immunity from scrutiny. The controversy surrounding the alleged recovery and burning of huge amounts of currency notes at a Delhi judge’s official residence further intensified these concerns. Instead of allowing conventional law enforcement agencies to proceed with an FIR and investigation in the normal course, a three-member panel of Chief Justices was constituted to look into the matter. The optics were terrible.
Citizens began asking a legitimate question: if an elected representative, a bureaucrat, a police officer, or any ordinary citizen were involved in a similar controversy, would a self-appointed committee be permitted to investigate the matter? Certainly not. Then why should different standards apply to the judiciary? Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy. But independence does not mean insulation from accountability. There is a vast difference between protecting judicial functioning from political interference and creating an ecosystem where internal mechanisms operate behind closed doors. If tomorrow the Legislature says Parliament alone will investigate allegations against MPs, or the Executive says bureaucrats will only be investigated by fellow bureaucrats, the nation would rightly object. Why then should exceptionalism become acceptable in one institution? The judiciary often reminds other constitutional authorities about transparency, probity and constitutional morality. It has every right to do so. But moral authority carries a reciprocal obligation. The same standards that the judiciary prescribes for others must also apply to itself. The phrase “Pandora’s box” should worry every Indian. Because in a constitutional democracy, transparency is not a threat; secrecy is. The answer is not to protect institutions from scrutiny but to strengthen them through greater openness. A transparent collegium process, clear criteria for appointments, reasoned decisions and institutional accountability will only enhance the judiciary’s credibility. After all, institutions do not lose respect when questions are asked. They lose respect when questions are avoided. The Supreme Court may not wish to open Pandora’s box. But the larger question remains unavoidable: if the guardians of the Constitution are unwilling to subject themselves to the same standards of transparency they demand from others, who then guards the guardians themselves?
