India, March 23 -- An unprecedentedly candid admission by Supreme Court judge, justice Dipankar Datta, that the collegium system has failed to protect judges with integrity in the past, comes at a pivotal moment in the evolution of the institution - when questions are being asked about its transparency and decision-making. Speaking at the first Supreme Court Bar Association national conference on "Reimagining Judicial Governance" in Delhi, justice Datta said the collegium failed to stand by judges who acted with courage and integrity, warning that such instances may discourage judges from prioritising ethics over career advancement. "Many judges have had the mental courage and conviction to take the hit for the greater good. However, how many judges in present times would prioritise ethics over career growth? Do you expect them to have the rectitude to practice what is preached? It is a bitter pill to swallow," justice Datta said. "There have been instances in the past where those who followed this statement were not protected by the collegium by ensuring that they are not victimised for their righteousness," he added. He then appealed to justice BV Nagarathna, who is currently a part of the collegium and was on stage, to stand up to the challenge and protect judges - an uncommon public appeal. The rarity of this exchange underlines the importance of the issue. In recent years, the collegium system has come under increasing criticism over opaqueness in decision-making and the repeated clashes with the executive over selective clearance given to collegium picks or inordinate delays in giving a response. The collegium system was designed by the Supreme Court to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and to ensure only limited participation of the government in choosing judges. This is important not only symbolically - to ensure a pillar of the Republic stands on its own - but also practically because the government is the largest litigator in courts. If the collegium system has to fulfil its original mandate, it has to be more robust in pushing for transparency in its decisions. Similarly, the government has to reconsider its stance of selectively picking (and picking on) candidates recommended by the collegium. Such practices, shrouded in opacity, not only upset the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary but also create an undesirable perception of bias. Think of the collegium's statement on the transfer of justice Atul Sreedharan last year, attributing the decision to "reconsideration sought by the government". This is detrimental to both critical processes, such as seniority and filling of vacancies, and also the standing of particular judges. Both the collegium and the executive should take note....