National Judicial Appointments Commission was a proposed reform by which the mode of appointment for judges in the country would change. The NJAC was designed to make judicial appointments more accountable and transparent. This process of appointment is more or less made by the collegium of high court judges before the introduction of the NJAC. It raises considerable debate regarding its-transparency and fairness.
| GS Paper | General Studies II |
| Topics for UPSC Prelims | National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, Provisions of Article 124A, Composition of NJAC, Constitutional Amendments related to NJAC |
| Topics for UPSC Mains | Role of the NJAC in judicial appointments, NJAC and its impact on the independence of the judiciary, Issues and challenges in the NJAC Act, Comparison between NJAC and Collegium System |
The NJAC has been a new body constituting the constitutional body, by replacing the collegium system of judges’ appointment. The collegium was a system that was in place since 1993; under this system, decisions with regard to appointments into the higher judiciary were taken by a group of high court judges. The NJAC put an end to this by coming up with a commission consisting of both judicial and non-judicial members.
Under the National Judicial Appointments Commission, it involves multi-stakeholder selection involving the judiciary and the government. Hence, it was an attempt to make the process more inclusive and less prone to bias.
To set up the NJAC, National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2014 was brought and put forward the definition of constitutional amendments along with their roles. In the context, it started to replace the collegium system with something rather structured and balanced.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2014 mentioned high transparency. Sincere efforts have been made so that the process of judicial appointments is not only taken by the executive but the judiciary also participates in it. With this change, the confidence of the public was to rise in judicial appointments.
| Member | Role |
|---|---|
| Chief Justice of India (CJI) | Chairperson of the NJAC, leads the commission in the selection process. |
| Two Senior Judges of the Supreme Court | Assist the CJI in providing judicial expertise and perspective during the selection. |
| Union Minister of Law and Justice | Represents the executive branch in the appointment process, ensuring government involvement. |
| Two Eminent Persons | Chosen by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, CJI, and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. They bring diverse viewpoints to the commission. |
The National Judicial Appointments Commission, depending on appointments and the transfer of judges, functioned. The National Judicial Appointments Commission would ensure that a balanced procedure was followed for the judiciary. Through these defined functions, the National Judicial Appointments Commission intended to curb some of the evils along with this earlier system by removing opaqueness and thus preventing the same.
Judges Selection
NJAC was to suggest names of judges for appointment to Supreme Court and High Courts. There is a multiplicity of stakeholders involved in the process; hence, the process would be fair and transparent. The selection was merit-oriented and qualified; thus, the chances of such favoritism or bias at the entry level to the higher judiciary were very less.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission was authorized to make transfer proposals between one High Court to another. This was an aspect of ensuring the judicious distribution of judicial resources. The transfer recommendation made ensured the judicious dispensation of judicial work all over the country, thereby enhancing the efficacy of the judiciary.
The main function of NJAC had been the removal of all confusion over transparency in judicial appointments. The process adopted was completely transparent – members with not only judicial representatives but also executive members held frank discussions. This transparency was meant to eradicate all sorts of obscurity that portrayed their erstwhile detested so-called ‘black hole’ of judicial appointment where the public could not even be assured of the purity of judicial appointment.
The NJAC had to screen candidates for judgeships through a sieve of merit, professional qualification, and sound ethical standards. This meant in-depth assessments of the antecedents of candidates to ensure only the best-suited people were selected to handle appointments to the higher judiciary; this meant further strengthening the quality of the legal system.
The veto power was the unique function of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The right to veto was so assigned that any two of the members of the commission would have the power to exercise veto over any recommendation. Such a mechanism would ensure that there was always a check on majority from any one group, and only when there was consensus with adequate representation of diverse opinions, the decision could finally be made for judicial appointments.
The NJAC had to consult opinions from the judiciary and government before appointing someone or making transfers. This incorporation of varied views attempted to strike a balance in the process and have a fair system with less opportunities to exercise discretionary choice and appoint judges.
Another significant function was the NJAC’s power to conduct interval reviews of the judicial appointments process. It was to be made to ensure that appointments must be made under the guidelines and procedures established. By conducting these reviews, NJAC kept itself accountable to itself in the judicial appointment process and tried to make the selection process better as far as judges’ choices were concerned.
The procedures that NJAC was to follow were to streamline the process of appointment of judges. The same was to be achieved in order to achieve standardization, transparency and accountability. These would ensure that the National Judicial Appointments Commission would serve as a body that is fair, diverse and transparent in its judicial appointments.
The NJAC was supposed to provide recommendations for the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. The commission would scrutinize professionally qualification, integrity, and experience of each candidate with utmost care to ensure that the best suited person should be put into the position while not compromising on unbalanced and opaque procedures.
The NJAC, before appointing a judge in the judiciary, would take advice from various stakeholders such as senior judges, the executive, and the Chief Justice of India. In this way, it made sure that the process of appointment wasn’t tilted but incorporated one who was in the best interest in order to hold high judicial standards and not have one-sided judgment.
Merits, which included experience, integrity, and professional conduct, were measured in candidates considered for appointment or transfer. Performance, judicial philosophy, and past judgments of the candidate ensured a competent judiciary, as stood for by the NJAC to uphold public trust in the judicial system and reinforce the quality of the judiciary.
The NJAC had a clause that gave veto power to any two of its members against any appointment recommendation. They expected such a provision to check potential biases or undue influence. So that no entity received uncontrolled and unbridled power in the judiciary selection.
After the inner procedures were over, the NJAC would finalize its review of recommendations pertaining to appointments and transfers. It would ensure that all the processes were undertaken as per the rules. And also that every aspect of a candidate’s suitability was properly scrutinized. Before finally presenting the list for approval, thereby upholding high standards in the judiciary.
Several groups opposed the National Judicial Appointments Commission for its approach to the appointment of judges. Though it strengthens the system, critics feel that it endangers judicial independence. Non-judicial members raised concerns mainly as there are members from the executive regarding political influence on judicial appointments.
In 2015, the Supreme Court declared NJAC unconstitutional. The NJAC, so the three judges’ pronouncement went, compromised the independence of the judiciary. Perhaps the bedrock of any democratic society, since it plunged the judiciary into an institutional ignominy at the hands of the elected class. The judgment restored the collegium system, placing the entire responsibility for appointments again and once again squarely in the hands of the senior judges.
Proponents of the National Judicial Appointments Commission regarded the NJAC as an opportunity to reform the opaque collegium system. They argued that granting judicial appointments power to a balanced panel will make it all the more robust and accountable. The opponents felt that this NJAC was a threat to judicial independence, inasmuch as the executive became too intrusive.
The NJAC controversy continues even after its abolition. Several experts believe there is a middle way between the NJAC and collegium systems. It would be necessary for both judicial independence as well as transparency.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission was a landmark attempt to revamp the judicial appointment system in India. It promised transparency, inclusivity, and checks on a system that for long remained opaque. It promised everything except one: that it would somehow ensure judicial independence; therefore, its fall.
| National Judicial Appointments Commission UPSC Notes |
| 1. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) aimed to reform the process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. 2. The NJAC was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act in 2014, replacing the collegium system of judicial appointments. 3. It comprised six members: the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons. 4. The two eminent persons were selected by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition. 5. The NJAC sought to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in judicial appointments, addressing criticisms of the previous collegium system. 6. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, stating it violated the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution. 7. Post-verdict, the collegium system was reinstated, continuing to play a central role in the appointment and transfer of judges. 8. The debate around NJAC highlights the need for balancing judicial independence with accountability and transparency in judicial appointments. |
Higher education system in India is at a crossroads, facing a paradox of increased access…
Supreme Court Upholds the Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act The Supreme Court reversed…
The Jal Jeevan Mission is a flagship program of the Government of India. The mission…
Indian financial regulators are increasingly being put on the hot seat and hence have to…
G20’s Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group (DRRWG) Meeting in Brazil The G20 ministers who participated…
India has indeed scaled to new heights in terms of renewable energy. One such recent…