Answer:

Introduction:

An independent and impartial judiciary is fundamental to the health of any democracy, ensuring the rule of law and the protection of citizens’ rights. In India, the judiciary’s independence is challenged by political affiliations of judges and the efficacy of the Collegium system in maintaining judicial autonomy.

Body:

Challenges Posed by Judges’ Political Affiliations

• Bias and Partiality: Judges with political affiliations may exhibit bias in their rulings, undermining the impartiality of the judiciary. 
  • For example, post-retirement appointments to government bodies can influence judicial decisions in favor of the government during their tenure​​.
• Compromised Judicial Independence: Political pressures can lead to judges making decisions that align with the ruling party’s interests, jeopardizing the judiciary’s independence. 
  • For instance, the appointment of judges influenced by the executive can compromise judicial autonomy​​.
• Perception of Integrity: The public’s trust in the judiciary diminishes when judges are perceived to have political leanings. 
  • This perception of compromised integrity can erode confidence in judicial decisions, as seen in instances where judges have publicly aligned with political ideologies​​.
• Case Allocation Manipulation: Political affiliations can lead to the manipulation of case allocations by senior judges. 
  • The Chief Justice of India (CJI), as the master of the roster, has significant influence over which judges hear which cases, potentially leading to biased outcomes​​.

Role of the Collegium System

• Judicial Independence: The Collegium system, established through a series of judicial decisions, aims to ensure that judges are appointed without executive interference, thereby maintaining judicial independence. 
  • The system involves a body of the CJI and senior judges who collectively make decisions on appointments​​.
• Checks and Balances: While the Collegium system aims to act as a check on executive power, it has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability. The absence of written procedures and public scrutiny in the selection process has led to allegations of nepotism and favouritism​​.
• Rejection of NJAC: The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed to replace the Collegium system, intending to include non-judicial members in the appointment process. 
  • However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, as it was deemed to undermine judicial independence by increasing executive influence​​.
• Transparency Issues: The Collegium system’s lack of transparency and unclear selection criteria have raised concerns about the objectivity of judicial appointments.
  • Efforts to introduce more transparency and a formal mechanism for the appointment process have been suggested to address these issues​​.

Conclusion:

To maintain the judiciary’s independence, it is crucial to address the challenges posed by judges’ political affiliations and enhance the transparency and accountability of the Collegium system. Implementing reforms such as a clear, publicly accessible procedure for appointments and a balance between judicial and non-judicial members in the selection process could strengthen the judiciary’s autonomy. Ensuring an independent and impartial judiciary will uphold the democratic values and protect the rights of citizens in India.