Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Context: CJI Surya Kant said Supreme Court would consider plea to revive NJAC, ending Collegium system of judicial appointments, which was struck down as unconstitutional in 2015.
More in News:
- Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara made oral mentioning, seeking permission to argue case in-person, submitting NJAC striking down was “great wrong” substituting people’s will with four judges’ opinion.
- NJAC briefly gave Centre equal role with judiciary in constitutional court judge appointments; struck down as unconstitutional in 2015, reviving earlier Collegium system of judicial appointments.
- Plea urged 2015 judgment be rendered void ab initio as it revived Collegium system, described as “synonym for nepotism and favouritism” lacking transparency in appointments process.
NJAC
- The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium system.
- It aimed to introduce a transparent, broad-based, and accountable mechanism for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- The Amendment inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C, formally establishing NJAC as a constitutional body for recommending judicial appointments and transfers.
Judicial Appointment Constitutional Framework
- Article 124: Governs appointment of Supreme Court judges, including the CJI.
- Article 217: Deals with appointment of High Court judges.
- Article 222: Allows transfer of High Court judges after consultation with the CJI.
- Article 368: Amended to introduce NJAC through the 99th Amendment.
- Articles 124A–124C: Define NJAC’s composition, powers, and procedures.
NJAC Composition (Six-Member Body)
- Members
-
-
- Chief Justice of India – Chairperson (ex-officio).
- Two senior-most Supreme Court judges – ex-officio.
- Union Law Minister – Executive member.
- Two eminent persons – Selected by a committee of PM + CJI + Leader of Opposition.
-
- Eminent Persons Criteria
-
- At least one from SC/ST/OBC/minority or a woman.
- Tenure of three years, with no reappointment.
- Intended to bring diversity and societal representation.
Functions of NJAC
- Recommend appointments of the CJI, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, and Chief Justices of High Courts.
- Assess candidates on merit, seniority, integrity, judicial experience, and legal expertise.
- Recommend transfers of High Court judges based on administrative needs.
- Collect background information via consultations with States, Bar Associations, and legal authorities.
- Establish transparent procedures and timelines for appointments.
Why NJAC Was Struck Down (2015 Judgment)
-
- In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), a 4:1 majority held the NJAC unconstitutional.
- Key Reasons
-
- Judicial independence weakened by inclusion of executive and non-judicial members.
- Violated the Basic Structure Doctrine, which protects judicial primacy.
- Two-member veto threatened decision-making and risked political blocking.
- Executive role in selecting eminent persons risked politicisation.
- Lack of clear criteria for “eminent persons” enabled arbitrary selection.
Issues with NJAC
- Possible erosion of judicial primacy in appointments.
- Higher chances of political influence due to executive involvement.
- Veto clause could delay appointments and worsen vacancies.
- Ambiguous definition of eminent persons.
- Structural imbalance between judiciary, executive, and outsiders.
Way Forward (Post-NJAC Debate)
- Transparent collegium with published criteria and reasons for selections.
- Independent secretariat to handle verification and documentation.
- Objective evaluation metrics for judges based on judgments, integrity, and expertise.
- Formalised stakeholder consultations while retaining judicial independence.
- Enhanced diversity in higher judiciary.
- Periodic performance review before elevation to the Supreme Court.