SC judge bats for transparency, says calling people ‘ants’ or other names unconstitutional

Justice Bhuyan made the remarks while speaking at an event at IIC New Delhi organised by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy for the release of a report titled “The Judicial Transparency Index”.

The report looked at how much information the Supreme Court and the 25 high courts make publicly available, including on court proceedings, administration and judicial appointments. It noted that while recent Collegium resolutions on appointments and transfers are available online, many do not give reasons for the recommendations.

Flagging what he described as the opacity surrounding the Collegium system, Justice Bhuyan said deliberations over the elevation and transfer of judges remain confidential, and reasons for rejecting or deferring recommendations are rarely disclosed in full.

He also questioned the absence of reasons in three Supreme Court Collegium resolutions from 2025, contrasting these with earlier resolutions where he said recommendations were supported by reasons.

He said the principle underlying open courts and the public’s right to know should also extend to information about those appointed as judges. “Citizens… have a right to know what is happening in the court. They have a right to know who would be their judges. They have a right to know what kind of judgments the honourable judge has delivered. This should be in the public domain,” he said.

Justice Bhuyan also referred to the SC Collegium’s January 18, 2023, resolution reiterating its recommendation to appoint Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal as a judge of the Delhi High Court as an example where detailed reasons had been given. However, that recommendation had remained pending for over three years.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment that brought the office of the Chief Justice of India within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, he emphasised the relationship between judicial independence and accountability, quoting the court’s observation that “judicial independence cannot be used as a byword for avoiding accountability.”

While courts had made significant advances in transparency in their adjudicatory functions, including through live-streaming, Justice Bhuyan said the same openness had not necessarily extended to the judiciary’s own institutional processes.

He said that “a judiciary that has embraced publicity in its adjudicative function has been markedly more cautious about extending the same principle to its own constitutive process.”