Introduction
As an advanced selection procedure the Indian judiciary established the Collegium system to pick judges for Supreme Court and High Courts of India. Through Three Judges Cases spanning from 1981 to 1998 this system established judicial independence with complete autonomy for selecting unbiased judges who need not be influenced by executive intervention.

Structure of the Collegium System
1. Supreme Court Collegium: Under the collegium structure the Chief Justice of India (CJI) joins four senior Supreme Court judges as members.
2. High Court Collegium: This body contains the High Court’s Chief Justice joined by its two most experienced senior judges.
3. Constitutional Basis: According to Article 124 the Supreme Court judges receive their judicial appointments.
High Court judges receive appointments based on Article 217 in the Constitution.
Under the Collegium system courts secured their independence through an improved process that replaced executive control.

Supreme and High Court judicial selections through the Collegium System create two significant advantages.
1. Judicial Independence: Through this process the judiciary safeguards its independence from both executive and legislative pressure together with judicial impartiality in court decisions.
2. Merit-Based Choice: Judges demonstrate expert competence which enables them to earn their positions through demonstrated judicial excellence.
3. Protection from Populism: Treating judges selection free from both political control and public popularity represents a fundamental strength of this system.

Probable difficulties with the Collegium System as a nomination system exist
1. Lack of Transparency: Judge selection criteria operate in shadows because official details about such decisions are never revealed to the general public.
2. Nepotism and Favoritism: Claims of family relations and nepotism erode credibility.
3. Executive Delay: Judicial appointment delays occur when the government fails to endorse Collegium recommendations before court appointments proceed.
4. Lack of Diversity: Multiple groups including women plus marginalized communities and regional candidates regularly find themselves unrepresented in the system.
5. Judicial Backlog: Cutting back appointments at disposal courts causes courts to take longer to handle cases which diminishes public trust and affects justice accessibility.

Proposed Reforms
1. Standardizing Procedures: Organizations must create detailed processing guidelines that will establish clear appointment procedures for having a fair decision-making system.
2. Timely Result-Giving: All Collegium recommendations must undergo a specific timeframe for official processing.
3. Inclusiveness: A proactive approach to increase the bench’s representation through appointments of women and marginalized groups and regional judiciary practitioners is needed. 4. Publication of Reasons: For each decision make full disclosures regarding appointments alongside rejecting candidates.
5. External experts: Enemy-free expert viewpoints should be added through outside specialists to achieve balanced decrees and manage prejudice-based decision-making.

Conclusion
The Collegium system protects judicial independence although obstacles exist including secrets about decisions and slow processes and insufficient representational diversity. The judiciary requires reforms that will enhance transparency and boost accountability alongside inclusivity measures because doing so will rebuild public faith without compromising judicial independence or impartiality.