Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar has called for a complete overhaul of the current collegium system for judicial appointments, stating that public opinion is increasingly in favor of an alternative mechanism.

He also urged the Supreme Court to establish a more robust internal system to address concerns regarding judicial accountability and allegations against judges.

In an interview with PTI, Kumar, who served as the Law and Justice Minister under the UPA government, spoke extensively on pressing issues concerning the judiciary, including internal reform, judicial appointments, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), and the trend of parliamentary laws being challenged in court.

“The time was right for the NJAC back in 2014–15 when it was introduced. It is certainly ripe today,” Kumar said, adding, “Public opinion is moving decisively in favour of a more transparent and inclusive process for appointing judges—whether on the lines of the NJAC or through an improved mechanism.”

Kumar, who was involved in drafting the original NJAC Bill, pointed out that although the bill received overwhelming parliamentary support, it was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. He expressed disagreement with the reasoning behind that decision.

According to Kumar, the court's principal objection—that government representation in the NJAC would undermine judicial independence—was a flawed interpretation. “Independence of the judiciary should not be confused with the process of appointing judges,” he said, echoing the minority view expressed by Justice J. Chelameswar in the NJAC judgment.

He questioned the assumption that either the executive or the judiciary alone could always guarantee the best appointments. “Where is the guarantee that judges will always pick the best judges, or that government-nominated judges will be subpar? Some of our finest appointments have come from the executive,” he argued.

Kumar cautioned against deepening rifts between the judiciary and the executive, warning that such a divide could lead to institutional conflict detrimental to constitutional governance.

Addressing the increasing number of parliamentary laws being challenged in court, such as the Waqf Amendment Act, Kumar said that the judiciary is being drawn into matters best left to the political arena. “Almost every major political question is now being shifted to the Supreme Court. While this may suit both the ruling party and the opposition, it places an unfair burden on the judiciary,” he said.

He reiterated that the primary function of judicial review is to protect citizens’ fundamental rights—not to nullify Parliament’s will. “The NJAC amendment, passed with a supermajority, reflected the sovereign will of the people. Can such will be so easily overridden?” he asked.

On recent controversies, including the alleged recovery of cash from the residence of a Delhi High Court judge, Kumar termed the incident “unfortunate” and said it had cast a long shadow on the judiciary’s institutional integrity.

He stressed that while the government should not exploit such incidents to control judicial appointments, the episode has sparked valid concerns about the existing system.

“A judge, in the early stages of inquiry, is already facing public condemnation, transfer, and withdrawal of work. This raises questions about due process and fairness,” he noted.

Kumar concluded by calling for a review and reform of the Supreme Court’s in-house mechanism for handling allegations against judges. “It must be more just, balanced, and effective—protecting judges from baseless charges while ensuring accountability.”