Relevance: GS-2 (Judiciary, Constitution – Separation of Powers)

Source: The Hindu; Supreme Court Judgments; Ministry of Law and Justice

Why in the News?

The Chief Justice of India has indicated that the Supreme Court will examine a plea seeking revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and discontinuation of the Collegium system. The petitioner argues that striking down the NJAC in 2015 weakened democratic accountability and reinstated a system viewed as opaque. This has renewed the long-standing debate on how India must appoint judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

What is the Collegium?

An internal judicial body comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges (for SC appointments) that recommends appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. It is not mentioned in the Constitution; it evolved through case law.

Judicial Journey

Criticisms: opaque functioning, unexplained selections, frequent delays, limited diversity, and no external oversight.

3. The NJAC: Idea, Structure & Judicial Review

To make appointments more transparent and accountable by involving non-judicial members while retaining judicial participation.

Legal Framework

• 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014)
• National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014)

NJAC Composition

• Chief Justice of India
• Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
• Union Law Minister
• Two eminent persons (selected by a committee: PM + CJI + Leader of Opposition)

Why SC Struck it Down (2015)?

• The Supreme Court declared NJAC unconstitutional (4:1) because:
  • It violated the Basic Structure, specifically judicial independence.
  • Non-judicial members could influence or block judicial appointments.
  • Judicial primacy was essential for protecting separation of powers.

4. NJAC vs Collegium

5. Challenges for India & A Balanced Way Ahead

Persistent Issues

• Slow appointments and rising vacancies.
• No clear criteria for merit evaluation.
• Allegations of favouritism or “closed-door selection”.
• Tensions between judiciary and executive over names.
• Low representation of women and marginalised communities.

A Balanced Reform Path

• Institutionalising transparency: publish eligibility criteria, timelines, and reasons for decisions.
• Independent Secretariat: for verification, data management and support (recommended by many commissions).
• Audit mechanisms: annual reports to Parliament without compromising judicial primacy.
• Diversity mandate: ensure social, regional, and gender representation.
• Revisiting NJAC structure: a redesigned NJAC that maintains judicial primacy while adding procedural accountability.

India’s appointments debate highlights the need for a system that protects independence while ensuring openness and fairness.

Q. “Critically evaluate the debate between NJAC and the Collegium system. What reforms can make judicial appointments transparent without weakening judicial independence?”