The appointment and oath-taking ceremony of Justice Victoria Gowri, after a lot of political and judicial drama, was reflective of the existing discrepancies in the appointment process of judges. The debate over the accountability and transparency of the collegium system, as it is known, has intensified lately; and how Justice Victoria Gowri has been appointed to the Madras High Court justifies the need for having such a debate. The very core principle that India’s collegium system boasts of, i.e., judicial independence, appeared to be missing in the entire episode. In the first place, the collegium’s decision to recommend the name of Victoria Gowri might not have been based on complete information. Notably, the Chief Justice of India, following the filing of a plea challenging Victoria Gowri’s appointment, said that “there are certain developments which have taken place. Collegium has taken cognisance of what came to our notice and it was after our recommendation.” The collegium’s recommendations take note of the reports presented by Central agencies like the Intelligence Bureau and RAW. If the collegium indeed was not duly informed about all aspects, its ability to act independently stands questionable. Secondly, the executive wing of the government is ostensibly keeping no secrets in acting upon the collegium’s recommendations as per its political preferences. This brings us to yet another shortcoming in the appointment process of the judges — political bias. Very recently, the government expressed its reservations against the appointment of a Madras High Court judge on the basis that his public comments were expressively anti-establishment, and that he aired public criticism against the Indian Prime Minister. In the case of Justice Victoria Gowri, the allegations have been that she has a history of uttering anti-minority views. For example, she once targeted both Christians and Muslims, saying, “I would like to say Christian groups are more dangerous than Islamic groups. Both are equally dangerous in the context of conversion, especially Love Jihad.” Victoria Gowri also had a political affiliation with the ruling party till recently. The plea challenging her appointment as a Madras High Court Judge cited that she was the general secretary of the ruling party's Mahila Morcha. The natural question that arises here is that if the “anti-establishment” views of Advocate John Sathyan were prejudicial, why Victoria Gowri’s “anti-minority” views and her political affiliation shouldn’t be clubbed in the same category? The broader question, still, is centred around the opacity of the appointment system. The lack of transparency in the collegium system has been a longstanding issue, flagged both by the executive wing of the government and independent experts. The powers provided to the Supreme Court are all-encompassing and yet ineffective. From recommending names as an appointment body to reviewing the appointment as a review body, it is all about the whims and fancies of the apex court. Amid all this, there is the executive wing of the government which has been using its powers to sit on the names as per its political preferences. To an extent, it can be said that the executive holds the key. As the case of Victoria Gowri’s appointment unfolded, it became clear that through whatever path, the views of the executive got favoured. This is in sharp contrast to the stated principle of judicial independence underlying the collegium system. Analysing the recent trend of conflict between the Central government and the Supreme Court, the increasing dominance of the executive appears problematic. The judiciary cannot be allowed to come under the pressure of the executive in filling up the vacancies in courts. In this context, it will also be important to note what precedential value the case in consideration holds for the future. Though a Supreme Court bench validated the appointment of Victoria Gowri as a Madras High Court judge, it should not be forgotten that the bench adjudicated to establish the eligibility, and not suitability, of Gowri’s appointment. The subjective question of suitability was largely ignored. Also, the hearing of the challenge plea was largely futile, as junior judges were given the responsibility to review the decision of the collegium consisting of senior judges including the CJI. Without a doubt, there are glaring gaps in the appointment process of judges. The need for creating a more transparent and accountable system is quite pronounced and pertinent at this juncture.