Q.Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Model Answer
View this Question In PYQ RealmIntroduction
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, introduced via the 99th Constitutional Amendment, aimed to reform the judicial appointment process in India. It proposed a six-member commission comprising the Chief Justice of India, senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. This was designed to replace the opaque Collegium system with a more transparent, participatory mechanism involving both the judiciary and the executive.
Body
1. Summary of the Supreme Court's Judgment (2015)
- Unconstitutionality: In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) case, the Court declared the NJAC Act unconstitutional, ruling that it violated Articles 50 (separation of powers) and 124.
- Judicial Independence: The Court held that executive presence (the Law Minister and eminent persons) in the appointment process compromised judicial independence, which is a core component of the Constitution's Basic Structure (as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case).
- Reinstatement of the Collegium: The ruling reinstated the Collegium system, emphasizing that any alternative must fully safeguard judicial autonomy.
- Dissenting Voice: Justice Chelameswar dissented, arguing that the NJAC offered a balanced approach with broad democratic consensus and that executive involvement did not inherently threaten judicial independence.
2. Criticisms of the Judgment
- Judicial Supremacy: Critics argue the ruling reinforced an insular "judges appointing judges" system, lacking external oversight and public accountability.
- Overextension of Basic Structure: Some legal scholars view the decision as judicial overreach, excessively limiting Parliament's constituent power to reform the judiciary.
- Lack of Reform: While the Court acknowledged the Collegium's flaws, it failed to institute concrete reforms, leaving issues like the delayed Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) unresolved.
- Exclusion of Democratic Oversight: Excluding the legislature and executive undermines the democratic principle of checks and balances.
- Public Trust: The lack of transparency in the reinstated Collegium system risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary's legitimacy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's NJAC judgment successfully protected judicial independence but at the cost of preserving an opaque appointment process. As former CJI J.S. Verma noted, "Transparency is the hallmark of the judiciary." Future reforms must strike a delicate balance between preserving judicial autonomy and ensuring public accountability.