In S.P.Gupta v. UOI, better known as first Judge's Transfer case, the judiciary under the leadership of Justice P.N.Bhagwati surrendered the primacy of Supreme Court in the matter of appointment of judges and their transfers, to the Executive. Thereafter, the judges were at the beck and call of the Central Government, in the matter of appointment and transfer leading to loading of courts with pro-government people. Compliant judges were rewarded with good postings and post-retirement engagements. Defiant judges were punished with transfers. Later on, in the case known as Second Judge's Transfer Case, aka Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. UOI, the supreme court, by engaging in intellectual gymnastics resumed its powers in matters of appointment and transfer of judges. Afterwards, for over a decade and a half, this power has been exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The concept of collegium of judges came into force, forming a committed of three or five senior most judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court exercising this power.

 From the "committed judges" of Indira Gandhi's age, the country moved to totally independent judiciary which managed its own affairs. The Parliament and the Central Government also stood in the side wings and watched the judiciary managing itself. The Government's and the President's job was to merely agree and affix stamp of approval on the recommendations of the collegium of judges of the Supreme Court, which went to the Government in the name of the Chief Justice of India.

Thereafter, India has seen string of dubious persons adorning the high office of judges of constitutional courts, some caught and exposed, many not caught. Over a period of time, the public has become cynical of honest in judiciary. Though CJI S.P.Bharucha admitted that about 20% of the judiciary was corrupt, today, a common man thinks that the percentage may be other way around.

We have seen son-in-law father-in-law duo of K.Veeraswami and V.Ramaswami; CJI influencing lower judiciary for getting proper decree in his wife's suit; CJI who decided Jain Shuddh Vanaspati case, which was reviewed and reversed by the next CJI; judges involved in PF scam; money delivered to Judge's house; judges reported in resorts engaged in misbehaviour;  judges demanding sexual gratification for passing orders; judges who issued NBWs against the President and the Speaker of Lok Sabha by taking bribe; judges influencing Public Service Commission for securing government appointment for their children; a person who pocketed PSU's money before he became judge. The list can go on and on. It only points out that the highest judiciary, after assuming the responsibility of appointment and transfer of judges has not exercised the power responsibly and with diligence. The judicial appointments have become more and more dubious. With the total lack of transparency in the selection and appointment, only the appointed person knows how he was selected. In a democracy, the public has no means of knowing how a person came to be selected as a judge.

This doubt and ambiguity plagues not only the initial appointment as additional judge of the High Court, but also subsequent elevation as chief justice of high court or to the supreme court. This is amply proven by the fact that a person like CJ P.D.Dhinakaran, about whom his fellow judges and Chennai bar had complained was nevertheless chosen to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

This clearly shows that "there is something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark", to quote Shakespear. Since the judiciary has failed in responsibly exercising the powers vested in it, it is time for the parliament to step in and make law for judicial appointments, promotions, and transfers. No doubt, we are also equally cynical of parliamentarians, who are Mainly into Politics (MPs). But, then unlike judiciary, Parliament is a open house. Definitely, it is more transparent than judidial institutions.