In Anna Mathews (2023), the Supreme Court of India (SC) declined to scrutinise the material considered by the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) pertaining to a controversial judicial appointment to the High Court of Madras. The SC extensively relied on Judges Case II to justify the near-complete exclusion of judicial review in matters of judicial regulation, particularly in the contexts of appointments and transfers of the High Court (HC) and SC judges. Drawing upon Mahesh Chandra (2009), the SC distinguished between 'eligibility' and 'suitability', ruling that while limited judicial review might be applicable for 'eligibility' considerations, 'suitability' issues remain exempt from judicial review. This case note critiques the SC's continued resistance to transparency and openness in the SCC's operations. It contends that Anna Mathews is predicated upon a flawed conceptual framework that has no basis in the constitutional text or the context. The case note concludes that Anna Mathews not only absolves the SCC from scrutiny but also has the same effect with respect to other constitutional functionaries participating in the consultation process. Therefore, it calls upon the SC to revisit Anna Mathews at the earliest opportunity.