‘The Collegium system has failed, and it needs to be changed,’ Justice (Retd) Yatindra Singh said.
NEW DELHI: The recent decision by the Supreme Court of India to publicly disclose the assets of its judges has been met with a sense of vindication by Justice (Retd.) Yatindra Singh, former Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court and a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court. Singh, who retired as Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, is credited with being the first to ensure that every public dealing of judges — including their assets — was put out in the public domain, despite facing stiff resistance from within the system.
Sharing his thoughts on LinkedIn this past Friday, Justice Singh hailed the Supreme Court’s full court resolution as a “welcome sign
“This question was debated in the full court of the Allahabad High Court in 2009–10, and I was the lone voice advocating public declaration of assets,” he stated. However, despite his efforts, the prevailing sentiment at the time was against public disclosure, and the court ultimately resolved to submit asset lists only to the Chief Justice. This did not deter Justice Singh’s commitment to transparency.
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, Justice Singh said that the process of judicial appointments also needs reform.
“The Collegium system has failed, and it needs to be changed. There is no harm in trying a new system if the old one has failed,” he said.
Singh, who graduated from Allahabad University in 1973, joined the Bar the same year. He was appointed Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh in 1997 and became a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court in February 1999. In October 2012, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, where he served until his retirement in 2014.
Recalling his transfer to Chhattisgarh, Singh said he found an opportunity to implement reforms aimed at enhancing the judiciary’s public image.
“When I went to the Chhattisgarh High Court, we resolved not only to publicly disclose the assets of High Court judges but also of the District Judiciary, and class-I and class-II court employees,” he said.
During his tenure, the Chhattisgarh High Court also resolved to disclose the minutes of full court meetings and all committee resolutions — unless confidentiality was explicitly required. “This had never happened anywhere in the world; it happened in Chhattisgarh,” Singh told The Sunday Guardian.
Decisions made by the Chief Justice based on committee recommendations were also made public, provided both the committee and the Chief Justice approved. This created near-complete transparency, with the exception of matters like judges’ LTC and medical expenses, which were deemed to fall within the zone of personal privacy.
However, after Singh’s retirement, these transparency measures were rolled back.
In his LinkedIn post, Singh also referenced the resistance he faced, particularly from within the Supreme Court. He shared a link to his 2017 blog post titled “Naked in the Khan Market,” which provides a more detailed account of the “entire episode.”
Justice Singh described the inclusive process used for recommending names for elevation from the Bar during his tenure. It involved consultations with every sitting judge, all designated senior advocates, and the President of the Bar Association. Although the Collegium considered making its recommendations public, it ultimately refrained, respecting the Supreme Court’s strict confidentiality norms at the time.
His blog post further highlighted the Chhattisgarh High Court’s unprecedented decision to disclose the assets of a wide range of judicial personnel. “Chhattisgarh High Court became the first court where the assets of not only High Court judges but also the District Judiciary and class-I and class-II non-judicial officers of the entire state were put on its website,” Singh said.
This move toward radical transparency was not universally appreciated. Singh recalled a meeting with an “important Supreme Court judge” who strongly criticized the initiative, famously saying it was like “going naked in the Khan Market.”
While acknowledging that differing opinions were valid, Singh noted that many believed the Chhattisgarh High Court’s actions enhanced the judiciary’s credibility and transparency, fostering greater public confidence.
The blog concludes on a disheartening note, observing that in later years, “the old mindset prevailed in the Chhattisgarh High Court and these steps were rolled back.”