New Delhi, Aug. 2 -- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court on Saturday observed that collegium resolutions are not being forwarded with reasons, questioning whether this was a "step back" from the principle of transparency that the judiciary has always embraced. Releasing a report on the Judicial Transparency Index at an event in the Capital, justice Bhuyan said that not giving reasons is a disservice to many genuinely outstanding judges. Conversely, he said: "By withholding reasons, we also create space for individuals to enter the judiciary who may later describe groups of people as 'ants' and make other remarks that are wholly unconstitutional and contrary to the values of the Constitution." He was apparently referring to a controversial speech made by a former Allahabad high court judge at a VHP event in 2024 in a veiled reference to Muslims. Justice Bhuyan said, "A judiciary that has embraced publicity in its adjudicative function has been markedly more cautious about extending the same principle to its own constitutive processes." He cited three recent Supreme Court collegium statements that do not contain any reason for recommending elevations as opposed to the earlier trend when detailed reasons accompanied resolutions forwarded by the collegium. "Is this a step back from the principle of transparency," he asked. He further observed that deliberations in the collegium remain confidential and reasons for rejecting or deferring a recommendation are rarely disclosed in full and the criteria applied are not codified in any publicly accessible instrument comparable to the Memorandum of Procedure. Batting for open courts, he said, "There is no doubt that open courts make it possible for the public to develop reasonable perceptions about the judiciary, by enabling them to directly observe judicial behaviour, the processes and outcome of cases." Justice Bhuyan said the move by the CJI-led bench does not retreat from live-streaming. "Court's concern is precisely that decontextualised fragments of oral exchanges, observations made by judges in the course of argument, not findings, are being circulated with sensational captions, causing reputational harm to judges, advocates, and litigants..."...