Public opinion on the Supreme Court Collegium's judicial transfers is largely negative. Many believe the Collegium, despite its flaws, serves as an important barrier against political interference. Concerns are strong regarding the potential for the judiciary's independence to be compromised under the current government, with fears of increased political influence and decreased checks and balances. People express frustration over perceived arbitrary judicial power, lack of transparency, and nepotism. The general sentiment suggests a cautious preference for an imperfect system to protect against executive overreach.

Supreme Court

Government

Judiciary

* Your post title should be an accurate summary of your text post. "Help Needed", "Rant", "Unpopular Opinion", are examples of poor titles. 
* /r/India is not a substitute for Google. Only post your query on /r/India after you have searched for an answer on the web.  
* Self-posts also have to be specific to India. Don't copy/paste questions from /r/AskReddit. 
* For relationship queries, please also consider: https://www.reddit.com/r/RelationshipIndia/


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/india) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Bad as it is, a judiciary appointed by the executive will be magnitudes worse. 

Imagine not just one Khanwilkar or one MR Shah but 40 of them! 

At least under the current system, a Khanwilkar is balanced by others who are more reasonable. 

It's to destroy this balance that Rijiju keeps barking about collegium. 

Under a progressive govt, a better system may be possible. But under these far-right fascists, supporting the current collegium system is the better strategy.

tech-writer

the message is simple . u give judgements against govt and collegium will transfer u as a punishment( to tripura, meghalaya high courts or court where u are not senior ) and wont even recommend ur name for elevation to supreme court.

4 judges life were destroyed

Akil kureshi (sohrabuddin case)

Muralidhar( delhi riots case)

Jayant Patel (israt jahan case)

Vijaya tahilramani (bilkis bano case)

Our so called cji chandrachud who talks about liberty never spoke on how collegium bends to pressure of executive and destroys life of high court judges.

Our govt immediately cleared names of judges like hemant gupta and victoria gowri but opposed elevation of judge who opposed govt. Our collegium didnt take any contempt of court for it .

Pale_Rest2423

And the opposition parties keep sleeping on this too.

GL4389

rahmelemory

Wasn't there was some push for the reforms few years ago but SC struck it down calling it 'unconsititutional' 

Yeah courts are kind of a family business with judges and all mostly connected to each other  so definitely privilege and connections exist

ClinkzBlazewood

You just be careful on the morning walks.

[deleted]

Reintroducing the NJAC. The SC/ HC in this country are  inherently undemocratic institutions, i.e they are not elected by the people, either directly or indirectly. A couple of people on this thread have pointed out how the judiciary needs to be 'independent'. However, 'independent from political pressure' is different from 'independent from the people'. As presently constituted, the higher judiciary is independent from the latter. Additionally, the higher judiciary not being political appointees is a flawed argument because all the other branches of the government are political appointees. The American model of the SC might not be perfect but at least in its decisions it represents the social mores of the American society. That is simply no way of ensuring that in India because the judges themselves have no pressure on them to do so.

Someone mentioned how the PM isn't elected- but that is simply not true- you might not elect the "PM", but the PM has to be an MP- and he doesn't act independently of the cabinet- so there are considerable checks to his decision-making. There are no such checks and balances against the Higher Judiciary. 

Anyone on the fence about the whole NJAC issue and the "transparency" vs "accountability" debate should definitely check out Nassim Taleb's works on why certain institutions are destined to rot and decay because of their self-regulatory nature.

chandra_1_ashish

We need to ask ourselves a simple question- Do we live in a Democracy? If the answer is yes, then how is it that an institution that is in charge of "judicial review" of enacted laws, is a self-regulating institution. As presently constituted, the incoming judges of the SC/ HC are selected by a "collegium" of SC judges. Now ask yourself a fundamental question- Why? Why is it that the CJI needs to have a say in it at all? Is there any other public institution in this country where the outgoing members select the incoming batch. If yes, then can we really call ourselves a democracy? It's because we aren't really a democracy, but a hybrid aristocracy-where a certain unelected nobility decides what's good for the rest of us.

Judicial reforms at lower courts is prioritised because almost 90% of 5 crore cases are pending in the lower (District) courts. The constitutional article 312 proposes creation of All India Judicial Service (like IAS, IPS). But the Rajya Sabha has not taken any steps to create the service. 

Yes, at the higher levels the appointments should be more transparent. There are demanda from civil societies that minutes of the Collegium meetings should be published along with the metrix which are taken into account for appointments at HCs and SC.

SC does acts arbitrarily as we saw in Chief Justice Harrasment case, where CJI himself presided over his own case. That was complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice enacted by the SC itself! But the SC has also given some of the landmark judgements which has protected our Fundamental Rights, freedom, liberty and checked party politics (state emergency cases).

Whats-In_Name

Monopoly aur family culture khatam ho jaaega na bhai fir

Some clever asshole milord invented the sentence" basic structure of constitution" and from then onwards all those judges got 2 dicks and any law to reform them is struck down as it doesn't confirm to basic structure. Even  Ambedkar ji would be wondering now. 
Lack of accountability is another thing they enjoy. Look at how milord D Y C ordered center to divert all oxygen to Delhi without basic assessment. Later in audit it was known that Delhi showed many times more than the required amount of oxygen. Lot of other states suffered and a lot died . But that asshole is going to become CJI in 22. These lot of communist cock sucking shitheads should be removed

Govt should appoint sufficient number of judges in vacant posts. That is causing delay

CritFin

A small excerpt from a Judgement by Justice PN Bhagwati in case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India

"The public does not know how judges are selected &amp; appointed or transferred &amp; whether any, and if so, what principles &amp; norms govern this process. The exercise of the power of appointment &amp; transfer remains a scared ritual whose mystery is confined only to a handful of high priests. The mystique of this process is kept secret &amp; confidential between just a few individuals, not more than 2 or 4 as the case may be and the possibility can't therefore be ruled out that howsoever highly placed may be these individuals, the process may on occasions result in the making of wrong appointments &amp; transfers &amp; may also at times, though fortunately very rare, lend itself to nepotism, political..as well as personal &amp; even trade - off"

The Judgement was given at a time when Collegium System wasn't there, but hold true even today in an more agressive manner.

For everyone questioning the Independence of Judiciary, you need to have an Independent Judiciary not a Secret Judiciary, otherwise what's the point of it being "न्याय की देवी"

Some good facts to know:
1. While to even get a job of a sweeper in a government institution a candidate has to mug up everything be it history, geography, current affairs etc. But to run this country there is no qualifications needed. And irony is that most of the ministers aren't well educated and have criminal cases against them. Biggest examples are our PM and home minister.

2. Once a minister is elected he gets pension for his lifetime. If he is elected for two different ministries then will get pension from both till his lifetime. In contrast government has denied all pensions to government employees. (New ones)

3. While government can raid houses of anyone in this country for tax frauds and all but no one can raid house of a minister. One minister said once in parliament that they should have power to raid minister too but everyone rejected and shouted as if he did a crime.

4. While government talking of making india world class nation but they themselves can't even conduct a simple exam without getting it leaked. 

5. If you will see the tax collection graph of previous years there is constant rise in tax collection and will keep this trend. Today, the effective maximum tax that an indian pay is 43 percent, while the services we getting are same. Dont even have good roads leave alone other developments.

6. Government jobs keep reducing every year and there is mass unemployment. In contrast we have maximum young population today and when china was at similar situation they invested heavily in human resource and became second super power.

What do you think solutions of these problems can be?

Judiciary is meant to be independent, you can't have the government interfering with the judiciary otherwise it becomes just like bureaucracy where the ruling party appoints whoever they like who'll tow the line.

DwightKSchruute

More Judges to fastrack cases that have been stalled for a long time

I feel the system is fairly stable the way it is, except the following things. 

1. Judges have a retirement age. This means they have to kowtow to politicians to get some appointment in some special committee or RS nomination after their retirement.

2. The throughput of the courts needs to increase 

3. The HC and SC seriously needs to stop infringing on the functioning of the executive. For e.g. the madras HC just quashed the 120 kmph speed limit on highways and reduced it to 80. What authority they have to do this?

SnooSeagulls9348

Judiciary should be independent of the executive that's the only way to keep check on the ruling govt. Past few judges were mere puppets of the govt which led to some really absurd rationale presented by the apex court. As a matter to keep check on the judiciary we have the constitution of India to look over it

4Pot_smoke20

50CalEmir

Illegal is something that is prohibited by the existing constitution. Even basic structure is not applicable before 1973. As of now no act or law of parliament renders collegium illegal. Constitutional debates can be a guiding light only when there is a constitutional case in supreme court regarding such matter.

Honestly, i support the idea of the executive or legislative not interfering with the functioning or administration of the judiciary because of the level of corruption in the former branches of government.

Anyway, there's the doctrine of separation of powers that has been recognised under Art. 50 of our Constitution.

Upper-Refrigerator54

It's a club of elite oldies who are still better than corrupt politicians. 


These elite oldies select their kids , grandkids , niece and nephews as future Judges. You and I can never cross the bridge . Biggest nepotism scandal is there but our hands are tied cause Executive isn't even trustworthy. So let's just accept that it's a lesser devil for now.


Hopefully, as our country and democracy evolves and matures over period of time we'll develop a better understanding of this matter otherwise Judiciary , especially Supreme Court will remain an exclusive club of few families. 

YourSassyPikachu

Most people here are speaking in theoretical terms about independence or judiciary and the system of checks and balances. Those who have been through some stuff know that judiciary is as much corrupt, if not more, as the executive and parliament. There is nothing divine about judiciary which keeps corruption at bay.

I do believe in the absolute independence of judiciary otherwise parties in power will do just anything according to their will. But independence doesn't mean being unaccountable. Given the role of judiciary, it should lead by example when it comes to transparency related to the appointment of judges and allegations against them.

Till date, every politician or official in the country abides by the asset declaration rule, but judiciary has kept itself out of it and left it to the decision of the individual judges. How the decision is taken on which cases to hear first is also the sole decision of the judges. If there is any allegation against any judge for bribery or malpractice, the agencies have no locus standi, and they can't even register an FIR. Their vehicles flout the rules set by the Motor Vehicle act, but if any traffic official takes action against it, the next day you hear of his transfer. Any misconduct or misbehavior of a judge is subject to internal inquiry, but these inquiries often close absolving the judge. How can you expect his colleagues and seniors to punish him ?
Justice Karnan wrote about corruption in higher judiciary, and he was jailed for contempt of court. So there goes your freedom of speech too. If any media person or anyone else speaks about the misconduct of a judge, you'll be gagged and asked to retract your statements.

There are judges who have upheld the constitution, and have actually defended the democracy. But it is they whose name is used as a cover by the corrupt ones. Even on a personal level, I know a person whose father is a judge in a district court. He happened to hear a case related to an accident in which a resort owner was involved. The owner through his son informed the son of the judge about his resort and offered him a luxury car for trip to the hill station. The case was decided in his favour. The losing side was a poor family from a small town who didn't have enough money to hire a good lawyer. They lost their sole breadwinner as well as the case. And the judge went on a vacation with his family to the resort the next year.

It angers me when people say that judges are above doubt and protect people's rights. All you need is a closer look. Just don't get caught digging too deep or you'll be held for contempt too.

yetthinking

If the judges of the SC are appointed by the executive, there won't be any checks left on the executive. The existence of the SC would be redundant. (Majorly in upholding the constitution)

We don't have the supremacy of the parliament, and any unjust and unconstitutional decision can be overturned by SC. That wont be the case if judges are from the centre itself. (Even the HCs one)

We have federal structure and its important to keep the judiciary independent, if not, centre could take any decision affecting principles of federalism and keeping the power to itself.

There's a reason why we call 4 pillars of democracy. Independent nature of all can keep the checks on each other and can balance the whole.

Hairy_Ad_7387

I think thats the correct move by Supreme court. Look at USA, it is president who decides who get into American supreme court. Look what Republicans did, they waited until trump came into power and they appointed their people. Now all the cases on trumps can be squashed. He did it in 2016 and he also did ( or will do in 2025). 

It is better to have a powerful judiciary than to increqse the power of executive.

random_inga_1989

The judges are appointed by executive only. It was a question whether executive had arbitrary powers or concurrence with CJI was needed. It was during Indira’s rule where she bought amendment that PM &amp; Cabinets decisions are binding on President. Basically, PM now had arbitrary powers to pick their affiliates as SC judges. It happened during 70s when personal vendetta came in between of selection of judges.

Collegium was made so that CJIs own political inclination won’t have too much bearing on new judges selection.

Yes it is definitely not a perfect system 

But compared to the one US has where the party in power chooses judges it seems far better. You can predict the outcome of any case depending on the number of judges appointed by any party.

The problems would be better addressed if there is more transparency in the system rather than throwing the baby with the bath water.

The executive will always prefer a weak and committed judiciary ( read about HR Khanan)and if the power is handed to them they will ensure it happens.

So yes it might seem like it’s unconstitutional, but it serves well for out country.

john_wick_909

Supreme court has duty to upheld constitution.. 
in keshavanand case it held ‘basic structure ‘ need to be preserved 
Basic structure involves independence of judiciary 
To upheld independence of judiciary collegium system was introduced.
Supreme court never called it immutable, but he njac act had several flaws that could hamper independence

Plastic-Pop1267

Really Lalu Prasad Yadav choosing judges of Patna High Court would have been a great system.

teenageragain1122

Collegium was enacted in response to mandal reservation so that judiciary can be filled only with upper castes. Every judge first tries to find the surname of advocates appearing in courts so that he can favour upper castes

  
No check no balance

Its funny how they didn't publish the most intriguing part, the amount of money found. They conveniently didn't publish that. Corrupt fuckers 

lolz714

Cuz all of them are just the same? Judges are appointed by other judges (at least in SC afaik) they appoint someone who’s dada, mamu, chachu, fufa someone who was already a judge. Judges are people with a lot of power and not many consequences. Another one is that female judge in Atul Subhash’s case. Despite all the information and outrage against her, the courts didn’t do shit to her. That’s how it works.

Interesting-Bobcat52

Most corrupted system. But still these judges are given respects and facilities. As per my analysis 70% judges are corrupted.

Sea-Technician4687

A judgement by a HC / SC judge sets precedent and is effectively law. Several subsequent cases would have been addressed using judgements passed by the concerned judge.

Revisiting all judgements then becomes a major issue as it will upset the life of considerable number of people.

black_jar

Cuz saying anything against the honourable judiciary is contempt of court. /s

But soliciting by judiciary in return of favourable decisions is not pimping.

After all, judges dalllle thodi hain.

/s in case they look me up and jail me for this

literary_fest

Investigation is reserved for opposition

/s

Such-Emu-1455

Who's gonna arrest and convict them.

Police protect other corrupt Police , Judges protect other Judges coz basically they don't want the department as a whole to look bad. 

On top of all this , our stupid constitution protects everyone in the government...as a person who studied and analysed the constitution , Judges , IAS officers , Police and Politicans are bulletproof. You cannot even touch their hair as long as they hold the post. 

They tried to give them security to do their "Jobs" , ended giving them immunity and a free pass to do any - everything in their power...

It's failed book

quite_beyonder

Milords ke baare me aisee baat karta hain?

Spiritual_Piccolo793

MPs, MLAs have been sent to prison. Debarred from contesting elections for a lifetime (it was the judiciary who gave this verdict). Legislature ✔️


Ministers have been sent to jail, IAS/PCS officers are suspended/terminated and jailed. Executive ✔️


How many SC/HC Judges have been impeached/removed since Independence? Zero, Absolutely None. Judiciary ❌ 

This should give you an idea.

They were allowed to form a collegium, judges will appoint judges leading to 'Uncle Judge Syndrome' and the President is bound to give her assent. Nowhere in a sane democracy this should be allowed.

Anoited_King

It's frustrating. If a regular person was caught with that much cash, they'd be behind bars in no time. Just transferring a judge instead of holding them accountable only loses people's trust in the system. Justice should be equal for all with no exceptions.

Fit_Chocolate7929

Their corruption is only revealed by accident. There was another case of mistaken identify of a HC judge Nirmala where the bribe money was given to another judge with the same name. Google it.

Indian judiciary has created a closed system for themselves whereby while they will pass judgement on every single entity in India, but if culprit is from their own community they have their own set of rules.  
Few years back there was a rape case on a SC judge, SC promptly gave a clean chit. For a normal man, there is a definite jail time involved even if a case is fake.  
  
While they ask every politician to reveal their source of income, but this exercise is optional for milords.

TechyNomad

Infamous-Dust-3379

Well the only option is fight it digitally.

lil_too_ambitious

Who will investigate ? Cbi ( corrupt) , Police ( local gangsters with uniform ) , also there was an SA case against an SC judge and guess who was on the bench of judges that delivered the judgement? The accused himself delivered the judgement 

SC in between make some typical comments in favor of public and against gov just to give public the idea we are here for you 

Whole system is corrupt , and they all party together

Extremepleasurepro

The judiciary’s immunity from accountability and its elitism didn’t emerge overnight—it’s a legacy of its original purpose. The British established a structured legal system, replacing India’s diverse indigenous traditions, not to serve justice but to maintain control. It was a tool for suppressing dissent and revolts, treating the local population as second-class citizens while upholding colonial rule.

After independence, the country became free, but the system remained largely unchanged. Politicians inherited a ready-made structure and chose to run it as it was. That’s why, even today, our judiciary retains much of its colonial character—distant, elitist, and corrupt.

The judiciary is nothing more than a club of elites who see the common man as a slave, a laborer, or a second-class citizen. Simply put, power has just shifted from white skin to brown skin, so questioning it doesn’t really mean much.

the_sane_philosopher

The fire services chief came out and said no cash was recovered. Case closed. 🤡. Law is a joke in this country.

rawestapple

First if he is convinced all his cases will have to be reopened.
Police politician and judicial officers will all be in problem if things spirel out.

And well innocent people this guy send behind jail all will come for govt and justice system head.

And many more problems will be their.

So its better if you are not from rich family to keep your head down and treat it as nothing happened you didn't see or listen about this.

And if you wanna talk about this make sure you have a way to go to other countries so you don't go to Jail.

pranshu83

Why? Hmm have you ever heard in any political parties poll platform anywhere in India two things: a) Reform of the police system and making them professional and independent b) Reform the Judicial system to make it fast, efficient, hire more judges and make them independent?  Ever?  No? 

Why? Because it is in any political parties interest to grab on to power and Police is its muscleman and executioners and slow and corrupt Judiciary is necessary to ensure they will never be punished and in fact use it to further their agenda. This is controlling the sheep 101.

Mandir Masjid Bulldozer? Yes!. The Police/Politician/Judiciary is the Shit Sandwich Indians eat everyday.

😂😂😂 Indians realising they are living in a corrupt state with corruption from head to toe

How many ias/ips have you heard about 
Getting terminated 🤔 judges unse 2 kadam uper hai they are the ones who give the judgement so who the f ud ge is gonna punish them

fractured-butt-hole

Our justice system is still based on colonial dna. Which was designed to keep the judicial system and govt safe and not for welfare of society. 
As they just wanted the public to believe that justice will be served and keep waiting for it rather than taking action on their own. 
Unfortunately this was not changed once India got independence. Hence you can’t question judge or judicial system.

Fury801

Doesn't this just prove that they are basically just using a loophole from our Constitution which says that the Judiciary works independently and separately from the Executive and Legislature?

Meaning those who create the laws (L) and those who implement the laws (E) cannot look into the work (in this case, crimes) of those who ensure laws are applied fairly (J). 

Clear violation of ethics and trust, but I'm guessing they're protected by that?

Old_Yak_1285

While i agree the judiciary is rotten from the inside, the logic behind it is:

Because the judges have to first and foremost not live in fear of their lives so that they can pass a honest and fair judgment in every case. If every judge was afraid of being investigated and arrested all the time, he would not be able to exercise independence and his powers will be abused no matter what the actual problem is.

KaranSheth

The most corrupt system in India is judiciary

Careless-Ask6478

supredready

This is a medivel feudal country what to expect?

badluck678

SC wants to protect the image of the judiciary, if a judge goes to jail or is impeached for such or other charges, it will taint the image of courts in India. It is believed that people trust courts more than the legislature and judiciary.

devashishsaroha

Itachi_Uchicha_Rogue

indian judiciary is a gone case. every indian resident citizen is subjected to investigation and arrest. it is hand in hand rotten judiciary system of india that is helping the corrupt judges who would otherwise be in jail.

Ecstatic_Potential67

From the article:

“The resignations are the result of a constitutional overhaul that was enacted last month that requires all judges be elected by popular vote.

The reform requires judges to resign ahead of the June election if they do not want to participate in the electoral process and wish to maintain their pension, or risk losing it, prompting an outcry among judicial workers.”

No_Understanding3344

Mexican here. Electing judges by popular vote is not the big issue here. 

The issue here is that in Mexico, we have an autonomous &amp; independent electoral organization that is fully in charge of electoral processes and has run every election for the last +30 years. This entity is completely separated from whoever is in power, and its electoral process is audited in every electoral process. It's also in charge of providing and maintaining an electoral ID that we can use to cast our vote. 

The current government wants to get rid of this entity and be sorely in charge of elections. It wants to be the "*trust me, bro. You don't need audits. My guy won*" of elections. 


If they leave the federal elections institute alone, the election of judges won't be an issue: clean, auditable elections, but if they still want to disappear the [National Elections Institute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Nacional_Electoral) it will be the ultimate power grab move.

CapitanFlama

How do we get this to happen in the United States?

Obi-wan__Jabroni

Man, that's just awful. What were the reforms that prompted this wholly unwanted turn of events? Asking for a friend.

EDIT: I WAS MAKING A FUCKING JOKE. I KNOW WHAT THEY DID.

**EDIT: My comments below are based on what the CNN article had, but it didn't have the full story.** My sincere thanks to u/Agile_Definition_415 for the notice! 

The reforms actually include something amazing:

&gt;Those interested in participating in the election for members of the courts must meet the following requirements: On the day of the publication of the call for the election, **they must (1) have obtained a law degree with a minimum average score of eight**; (2) **have a minimum average score of nine in the subjects related to the position to be held, whether within the individual’s undergraduate degree, specialization, masters, or doctorate**; and (3) **have at least five years of professional practice in law**. Subsequently, those who meet the aforementioned requirements will be chosen by three committees, each composed by members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, respectively. Each committee must select the most suitable profiles for the judicial role.

[https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/mexican-legislature-approves-significant-judicial-reforms](https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2024/09/mexican-legislature-approves-significant-judicial-reforms)

I want to apologize for my initial thoughts, since they were based on only a partial understanding of the facts as they were presented. I hope CNN updates the article with more information about what the reforms include, since it is vital to understand just why these justices resigned. It's because they were corrupt.

Below are my original comments in full:

From the headline, I immediately thought, "Well, either that's a good thing or a bad thing."

It's a bad thing, a VERY bad thing:

&gt;The resignations are the result of a [constitutional overhaul ](https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/americas/mexico-judicial-reform-debate-senate-intl-latam/index.html)that was enacted last month that requires all judges be elected by popular vote.

&gt;The reform requires judges to resign ahead of the June election if they do not want to participate in the electoral process and wish to maintain their pension, or risk losing it, prompting an outcry among judicial workers.

The idea of electing Judges, especially Supreme Court Judges, sounds good on its face. "Oh, well, they'll be accountable to the people! We can't have the most powerful judges in the country allowed to rule without checks-and-balances!" And that's a great point, we really shouldn't. But there also need to be requirements. John Oliver had an excellent segment on[ Last Week Tonight about Elected Judges worth a watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8&amp;pp=ygUYbGFzdCB3ZWVrIHRvbmlnaHQganVkZ2Vz).

The biggest issue is who can run, are there limits on who can run, and what could that look like. In essence, it looks like literally anyone can run, and that could be a disaster. The main reason you don't want just anyone running is, well, you want people who know what they're doing and won't ruin things for corrupt or selfish reasons.

My 2 cents? Term limits and an ethics code that holds them accountable to another branch of government. But I don't live in Mexico, and I don't know the system there well at all.

markskull

Reddit - We need to do this in America!!

Also Reddit - What is wrong with people!? Why are so many people voting Trump!? 

BlueLightSpecial83

Replaced by cartel-backed justices, naturally. 

littlewhitecatalex

The people won't recognize authoritarianism until it smacks them in the face and throws them in jail for dissent.

BasquiatRobot

For anyone that keeps praising this move and are excited about it, as a Mexican, let me share some additional context.


Since Morena (AMLO) has been in power, he has been systematically removing checks and balances aimed at increasing control of the Executive branch over what used to be independent bodies. This includes the election institute, the use of military for civil work related to infrastructure and public safety, and now, has passed a reform that will require judges to go through an election process to be appointed.

Judges and the judicial branch are thus at risk of political influence and corruption, not to mention outright becoming incompetent, because they will have to be in tune with public pressure in order to make decisions that should be made based on the law. Imagine for a second, judges deciding cases not based on the law or constitution of the country, but on how people feel about the case or risk losing their jobs. Not only that, but unqualified individuals can be appointed by popular vote. This is like giving out licenses to practice medicine to the popular politician.

To add to this, Mexico still has a highly uneducated population, by design, that would not be qualified to be electing judges. 

In addition to this mess, the judges also sued the government over the reform and asked for it to be unpublished until the case was heard. The Senate ignored the request, and kept the reform in place. Meaning, the executive branch and legislative branches, who are meant to be kept in check by the judicial branch, are working together to minimize the ability of the courts to challenge their decisions, and are doing so with impunity. 

This is all because the Executive and Legislative branches are currently Morena. What is happening in Mexico is a systematic dismantling of checks and balances, concentrating power in the executive branch. It is REALLY bad.

Recently, they also introduced a change to private property laws to remove the "private" part of it. It is now easier for the government to seize assets without judicial safeguards.

ETA: as another comment mentioned, the National Electoral Institute is losing its independence from the government, absorbed by it to oversee elections. The reform in and of itself may have good and bad points, the main serious concern is the numerous changes from Moderna that are leading to a significant reduction in the power of the judicial branch as well as an increase in power of the Executive branch in multiple fronts. It's dangerous. 

They are weakening the judicial branch.

Schmetterling190

alwaysfatigued8787

Mexican lawyer here.

The judiciary reform is the result of a six-year long quarrel between the former Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the judiciary power, as during his presidency the Supreme justices refused to green lit his reform packages twice, called plan A and plan B, subsequently [link](https://m-x.com.mx/al-dia/suprema-corte-repite-la-dosis-echa-abajo-la-segunda-parte-del-plan-b-de-amlo/).

The judiciary reform as been seen as a bad idea from both opposition leaders and party sympathizers alike [link](https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/politica/Avanza-entre-criticas-cambios-al-Poder-Judicial-20240827-0006.html) and has heel hailed as a failed model since Bolivia already tried it before [link](https://expansion.mx/mundo/2024/06/18/como-le-ha-ido-a-bolivia-con-la-eleccion-directa-de-jueces). The current changes were only possible since the elections for diputados y senadores (México's congressmen) overlapped with the presidencial and granted the newly appointed president Claudia Sheinbaum supermajority in congress, which means all proposals and reforms pass unchallenged. Without the opposition from Supreme justices to try to slow down or question the constitutional validity of the current government's reforms (the justices opposed the judiciary reform that would seek to make they resign), Mexico is effectively is a single party authoritarian government.

Extension_Stress9435

This is a very complicated subject and I don't pretend to understand all of the ramifications.  However, I am VEHEMENTLY AGAINST any and ALL LIFETIME JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS for reasons a toddler could understand.

Is electing judges great?  I'm not sure. But I am sure having lifetime judgeships is untenable.

gizmozed

Jesus Christ the level of out-of-touchness from Trump-addicted Americans in the comments is legit terrifying

I don't think you people truly realize the ramifications (and reasons, since the government is owned) of this policy

Bman1465

Realistically, an unbiased court is the goal. Realistically, a president and the people around him are susceptible to the same influences as voters

Catssonova

Unfortunately, in Mexico’s case, it means more corruption and cartel influence. Who’s going to run for judge now that they’re an elected position?

freexanarchy

Hello Venezuela! Hello Cuba! Hello Revolution!

Reasonable-Rain-7474

So the law requires them to either seek reelection and lose their pension if they lose or keep their pension if they resign willingly?

Sheesh, no wonder they retired. If they know they aren't popular for whatever reason, that's basically a golden parachute.

Vindicare605

Call me crazy.  Democracy isn't perfect.  And Mexico a it's  electorate decided to do this in their democratic process.  Let's wait and see how it turns out.   Obviously the previous way wasn't working.  Maybe this does. Maybe it doesn't.

rivalOne

Vienta1988

The idiots here advocating for Supreme Court justices in the America to be put into power by popular vote have never heard the name Trump, evidently.

PrestigiousOnion3693

Good. Now they can elect some new ones. Those motherfuckers were trying to do the legislative coup thing, they can go fuck themselves

hefty_load_o_shite

Y’all got any more of that judicial reform?

Kaelaface

The general population is mostly idiots. In what world is having idiots elect supreme court members a good idea?

Morena, your game is clearly to get total and authoritarian control of the country.

Power to the people, yes. Power to your hardcore and selfish, unaccountable style of government, No!

May the great god Quetzalcoatl break hell on you bigots!

la_gougeonnade

DaftGorilla

mattyb584

We need some judicial reform in USA: ethics &amp; anticorruption, term limits, 1 elected justice per state

WillBigly

dainthomas

Holy shit we definitely need this in America thank you Mexico.

Exact-Ad-1307

NotSoWishful

Electing supreme court justices by popular vote is completely insane.

ctrlaltcreate

Oddly, I like the idea of the justices (in general) to be elected by popular vote. . .

Dannysmartful

"Resigned" AKA told to resign or die. They will be replaced with Cartel friendly justices.

Correct_Juggernaut24

bwanabass

skucera

radarthreat

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended several judicial transfers affecting multiple High Courts, aimed at optimizing judicial administration across India.

Supreme Court Collegium's Judicial Transfers

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want