SIXTEEN years after the Third Judges case, Justice Chelameswar has shocked the nation by stating that (a) the Collegium does not record nor communicate the views of its members to the government (b) it does not maintain minutes of its own meetings (c) the dissenting views of its members are not recorded nor communicated to the government (d) the views of the Chief Justices of the High Courts are not made known to the government. Chelameswar’s recent letter to the Chief Justice is a stinging indictment of the Collegium. In fact, this is the first admittance of irregularity coming from within the judiciary itself. Justice Chelameswar has decided not to attend the Collegium meetings and has asked the Chief Justice to send him the recommendations which he will examine from his chamber to proffer his views. He has also taken a high moral ground by stating that he would be retiring in less than two years and would not look up to anyone for a post retirement job. Chelameshwar claims he has no personal agenda in the stand taken but is doing so in public interest. He has called for a public debate on the matter. This action by a member of its own fraternity has made the Collegium directly answerable to the public. For a long time the judiciary has remained beyond the pale of public criticism because of the fear of contempt of court or a misreading of what that means. This has left the judiciary or those who run it feel a sense of infallibility. Justice Chelameshwar has taken away this protective cloak that kept the judiciary from public glare. Indeed the moral stock of the judiciary had declined during Indira Gandhi’s tenure when it began to dance to the tune of the political executive and gave judgments supporting Emergency and without Constitutional precedents. Justice Chelameswar’s stance is for transparency in the appointment of judges of the supreme court and high courts and his dissenting order is an appeal to the larger constituency of citizens to correct the erroneous approach to judicial appointments.