A commentary in LiveLaw argues that the Supreme Court Collegium's opacity in appointing and transferring judges undermines public trust in the judiciary. While the collegium system was restored by a 4:1 majority in NJAC (2016), critics argue that without reasoned, public explanations for its decisions, judicial appointments remain vulnerable to perceptions of arbitrariness. The piece calls for structured transparency — speaking institutionally — without compromising the confidentiality essential to deliberation.

The collegium system governs judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts through three landmark rulings collectively called the 'Three Judges Cases.' The First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1982) held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments. The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993) reversed this, vesting primacy in the Chief Justice of India and establishing the collegium. The Third Judges Case (Presidential Reference, 1998) clarified that the collegium comprises the CJI and the four most senior puisne judges of the Supreme Court.

The NJAC judgment (2015–16) struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, by a 4:1 majority, restoring the collegium. Justice Chelameshwar dissented, arguing that judicial self-appointment lacks accountability.

The transparency debate centres on Memoranda of Procedure (MoP). The MoP governs the process of appointment but has never been finalised after the NJAC judgment. The core tension: the collegium must have deliberative confidentiality to function independently, yet total opacity allows unverifiable decisions. The LiveLaw commentary argues for 'institutional restraint' — publishing reasons for elevation and transfers while protecting deliberative secrecy — a middle path that has never formally been adopted.