Uncle Judge Syndrome: Lack of transparency in Judicial Appointments

Abstract

This article explores the pervasive issue of “Uncle Judge Syndrome” in the Indian judiciary, where impartiality in the judicial system can be threatened by familial relationships within the legal profession. This is to be scrutinized that the appointment is merit-based or because of familial relation as this is eroding public trust in the justice delivery process. By examining the situation arising out of these, this study aims to highlight the far-reaching consequences of nepotism in judicial appointments. This article is made by analysing recent reports, debates, and commentary to look into the roots of the problem and potential remedies to this critical problem. Addressing this “Uncle Judge Syndrome” is essential for ensuring both the legitimacy and the integrity of the Indian legal system.

Introduction

The phenomenon commonly referred to as “Uncle Judge Syndrome” is  a growing concern in the Indian legal system, where the questions are raised on the impartiality of the Indian judicial system  by familial ties between judges and members of the legal community. In several High Courts across the country, allegations are that judges have either directly or indirectly shown preferential treatment to lawyers who are their relatives, thereby lessening public confidence in the justice delivery process. Such relationships create a perception of bias, allowing certain advocates and aspiring legal professionals who are from legal background and have relatives in this field got easier way while the new generations keep struggling.This issue threatens not only the integrity of any case outcomes, but also the credibility of precedents made by affected judges, which in turn shapes the broader legal environment. As faith in the judicial system erodes with the erosion of public trust—a foundation upon which law-abiding society rests. Consequently, confronting “Uncle Judge Syndrome” is essential to uphold the ideals of equality, merit, and ethical governance within India’s judiciary

Uncle judge syndrome : lack of transparency in judicial appointments

The Law Commission of India in their 230th Report has mentioned the matter of appointment of ‘Uncle Judges’ in the High Courts, wherein it is said that the Judges, whose kith and kin are practicing in a High Court, should not be appointed in the same High Court.^[1]

The lack of transparency in India’s judicial system presents a core challenge to its credibility and effectiveness as the defender of justice in a constitutional democracy. Although the judiciary is highly respected, it faces criticism for operating in ways that keep many internal processes hidden from public view. A prime example is the collegium system used for judicial appointments and transfers, which, while designed to protect judicial independence remains controversial due to its secretive nature. Decisions about promoting, transferring, or rejecting judges take place behind closed doors without any public explanation, leading to concerns about bias, favoritism, and arbitrariness thatundermine trust in the system’s fairness. Transparency issues also arise in court proceedings, especially in important constitutional or social cases where hearings can be selective or held privately. The principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done suffers when decisions lack publicly available reasoning or when judgments are delayed. Moreover, transparency problems extend to judicial records and information. Court files, documents, and orders are often not easily accessible to litigants, researchers, or the public, despite efforts like the e-courts project aimed at digitization. This limits equal access to information. Financial transparency is another concern; unlike other branches of government, the judiciary does not have its budget independently audited, reducing financial accountability. The disclosure of judges’ assets, intended to maintain integrity and public trust is often voluntary, inconsistent, or withheld from public scrutiny.

Additionally, allegations of corruption or misconduct among senior judges are made more difficult to address by the lack of a strong accountability system. As impeachment—the only formal method to remove judges—is complex and rarely used, many questionable actions go unaddressed, harming the judiciary’s moral standing. A new list outlining the proposals for High Court elevations during the tenures of Chief Justices Chandrachud and Khanna has shed light on the state of diversity within the higher judiciary.In earlier Collegium resolutions, details about individual judges occasionally mentioned whether a candidate belonged to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Class. However, this is the first time such data has been presented in a comprehensive and consolidated format for every judge recommended by the Collegium. The release of this information has allowed for a clearer analysis of representation within the courts. One such analysis found that only about 3.6 percent of the judges recommended for High Court appointments came from Scheduled Caste communities—a figure that highlights the continuing lack of diversity in judicial elevations. Likewise, the disclosure of the relation of Collegium nominees to current or past appointees is a fresh feature. The inclusion of this information is likely meant to address the often repeated criticism that the judiciary suffers from ‘Uncle Judges Syndrome’.^[2]

Overall, this secretive culture and lack of openness weaken democratic accountability and erode public confidence in the justice system. Transparency is not just an administrative goal but a constitutional requirement to preserve the judiciary’s legitimacy as the guardian of fundamental rights and constitutional values. Without more openness in areas like appointments, financial management, availability of judgments, and judge accountability, the judiciary risks being seen as a closed-off, elite, and unanswerable institution, disconnected from the people it serves.

Suggested reforms

Establish an Independent Judicial Appointments Commission: Creating a transparent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) modeled after systems in countries like South Africa and the UK would help ensure a merit-based, publicly accountable selection process. This body should include members from the judiciary, executive, legislature, and civil society to prevent concentration of power and reduce undue familial influence. A 2015 Supreme Court ruling struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which proposed a selection panel that would include the Chief Justice of India (CJI), law minister, judges and eminent persons, preserving judicial primacy. Justice Chelameswar’s 2015 dissent highlighted the collegium’s opacity: no records, irregular meetings and leaks.^[3]

Mandatory Disclosure of Relationships: All nominees and sitting judges should be required to declare any close family ties or relationships within the legal profession. Strict scrutiny of such disclosures can enhance transparency and allow the public and legal community to monitor conflicts of interest. ^[4]

Reform Collegium Procedures: The collegium system should maintain a public record of recommendations, reasons for selection or rejection, and any recusal due to potential conflicts. Final decisions must be published to minimize secrecy and promote trust in the judiciary. Reforms on paper are not enough. There needs to be a cultural shift within the judiciary, where meritocracy is championed over nepotism. The onus is on senior members of the judiciary to lead by example and foster an environment where appointments and promotions are based on capability, not connections. ^[5]

Ethics and Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen and enforce codes of conduct for judges, implement the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, and empower independent oversight committees to investigate complaints and take corrective action against nepotism. Judicial reforms may involve changes to laws and regulations governing the legal system, the structure and organization of the court system, the appointment and training of judges, the procedures and rules of evidence used in trials, and the use of technology to improve court operations.^[6]

Widen the Pool of Candidates: Develop policies encouraging the elevation of first-generation lawyers, women, and underrepresented groups in the judiciary. Temporary restrictions on appointing relatives of sitting judges to high offices can create space for greater diversity and meritocracy. India’s judiciary must reflect its social diversity and earn trust. Adopting South Africa and Kenya’s JSC models can reform appointments and removals. The judiciary’s black robes must not conceal corruption or elitism. A JSC, with stakeholders like civil society, can end the ‘uncle judge syndrome,’ let in sunlight and ensure a judiciary that upholds the rule of law for every Indian.^[7]

Promote Public Engagement and Transparency: Enable the media and civil society to scrutinize and report on judicial appointments. Consider live-streaming collegium proceedings or releasing detailed minutes to foster institutional openness

Conclusion

When the question arises about credibility and fairness of India’s judicial system, it is essential to address  it. “Uncle Judge Syndrome” really needs to be treated. Nepotism and favoritism not only  damages public trust but also threaten the foundational principles of equality and justice. Reforms that could be taken to address this problem are such as establishing an independent commission for appointments,  disclosures of the procedure, and increasing transparency in selection processes are crucial steps to be taken to eradicate this problem. By taking accountable measures and making access to the judicial system based on merit, the system can become more credible, restoring confidence in judicial impartiality and upholding the sanctity of the rule of law.

^[1] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 22-November-2012 18:08 IST, last visited on 10th October 2025.

^[2] Supreme court observer, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/whats-new-in-the-supreme-courts-latest-transparency-initiative/,  last visited on 9th October, 2025.

^[3] https://cuts-ccier.org/indias-judicial-rebirth-lets-fix-how-we-select-and-remove-judges/?utm, last visited on 10th October 2025.

^[4] Supreme court observer https://www.scobserver.in/journal/whats-new-in-the-supreme-courts-latest-transparency-initiative/, last visited on 10th October 2025.

^[5] https://www.boloji.com/articles/54260/the-uncle-judge-syndrome?, last visited on 11th October 2025.

^[6] https://forumias.com/blog/judicial-reforms/ , last visited on 10th October 2025.

^[7] https://cuts-ccier.org/indias-judicial-rebirth-lets-fix-how-we-select-and-remove-judges/, last visited on 10th October 2025.