The process of selecting candidates for the new Chamber of Appeal had its flaws, and that reality is worth noting as the wider changes unfold. It demonstrated that the Supreme Court can conduct proceedings in full view of the public, an openness that the judge’s circle has long resisted. This moment marked a meaningful shift for the judiciary.
It signals an end to closed rooms and unspoken rules behind the scenes. Before the reforms, the National Council for the Judiciary operated in a way that allowed a tight circle of judges to decide the shape of the judiciary without public scrutiny. The change sits in stark contrast to that era.
Kaleta described the moment as a turning point in the relationship between the political leadership and the judiciary in Poland.
It is important to recall that judicial appointments were once made away from public view, without formal protocols or live broadcasts. Today, viewers can watch sessions of the National Council for the Judiciary, and the public pressure around the event underscores a broader demand for transparency. Critics from the opposition and some judges have argued that if the draw had not been broadcast, those who advocate for transparency would claim the vote lacked legitimacy. The debate around the process continues to play out in public discourse.
The new proceedings drew participation from both the established and the newly involved judges of the main court in Poland. They attended because they recognized the moment’s significance and its potential implications for the judiciary as a whole. Some had previously sent letter upon letter full of frustration. Yet, that did not change the legal framework or the method by which candidates are chosen and the president’s role in selecting the members of the new Chamber from among them. Critics of the lottery cannot alter the law, and they find themselves directing their ire at those who support the new approach.
The legal guardians who often present themselves as apolitical have shown willingness to defend even questionable proposals. This is a sentiment that fuels the tensions around the reform and explains why some observers are so vocal in their opposition.
A well-known lawyer, a judge of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, voiced on social media his view of the moment, noting that the change is tied to the ongoing debate over professional liability and career pathways within the court system. The development has added another layer to the discussion surrounding judicial independence and the practical steps needed to realize reforms.
The media, including the group commonly associated with the judicial reform debate, has been vocal about what they perceive as a decline in the standing of the Supreme Court and its leadership. The coverage often reflects a broader dispute over interpreting independence and the capacity of the court to function under new rules. When the draw was broadcast, supporters argued that openness matters, while critics warned of potential manipulation. The public record now includes broadcasts of similar instances at the National Council for the Judiciary meetings, and observers note that former spokespersons did not always push for such openness in the past.
The jury circle appears to recognize that a meaningful change has occurred. Behind closed doors governance is fading, and many judges see the shift as the end of a protected era. This is exactly what makes the reform so unsettling for some who fear losing established influence.
As is typical with new initiatives, there were hiccups yesterday. Journalists should have been present in the room during the draw. An incident involving the display of a candidate’s name prompted calls for a clearer and more verifiable process. It is a reminder that the Supreme Court and its oversight bodies must be prepared for such situations and implement robust verification procedures. Some gaps were identified, and these will shape future practice.
Yesterday’s draw will be remembered as a milestone. It does not guarantee immediate relief from political pressure or the end of controversy, but it does mark a shift toward more transparent scrutiny of the judiciary. The overarching aim remains to see the judiciary evolve while preserving its integrity and public trust.
Note: this account reflects reporting from the Polish public discourse around the reform process and is intended to present multiple perspectives on the event. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and ongoing accountability within judicial reforms. Citation: wPolityce.