The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a historic and contentious endeavor to reform the process of appointing judges to the upper judiciary in India. It will delve into the history, goals, obstacles, and implications of the NJAC, casting light on the intricate debate surrounding the independence and accountability of the Indian judiciary.

Contextual Background

In India, the debate over judicial appointments has a lengthy history. Adopted in 1950, the Constitution of India assigned the President of India, acting on the counsel of the Council of Ministers, the responsibility of appointing judges to the upper judiciary (the Supreme Court and High Courts). Concerns about the process’s openness and accountability have emerged over time. Critics argued that it lacked checks and balances and could be influenced by the executive branch of government.

Developing of the NJAC

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established at the beginning of the 1990s in response to the growing need for reform. The NJAC was constituted by the 2014 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the 2014 National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. Its primary objective was to replace the existing collegium system, in which justices had a significant say in selecting their colleagues.

The NJAC’s Purposes

  • Transparency: Through the inclusion of non-judicial members, the NJAC sought to increase the transparency of the judicial appointment process.
  • Accountability: It intended to ensure that the judiciary was accountable to the elected representatives of the people by including the Law Minister and two eminent citizens on the commission.
  • Diverse Representation: The NJAC was designed to provide diverse perspectives on judicial appointments by incorporating members from various backgrounds.
  • Merit-based Appointments: It sought to emphasize merit-based appointments while minimizing nepotism and favoritism.

The NJAC Membership

Six individuals constituted the NJAC:

  • Chief Justice of India (CJI): The CJI was the NJAC’s chairperson by default.
  • Two Senior Judges of the Supreme Court: The Chief Justice of the United States nominated two senior Supreme Court judges.
  • The Union Minister of Law and Justice: The Minister of Law and Justice for the Union was a non-judicial representative of the executive branch.
  • Two Eminent Citizens: These individuals were chosen by a committee comprised of the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Challenges and Controversies

The introduction of the NJAC was met with significant opposition and challenges, resulting in a protracted constitutional and legal battle:

  • Independence of the Judiciary: Detractors argued that the presence of the Law Minister and the executive in the NJAC compromised the independence of the judiciary.
  • Role of the Executive: Concerns have been expressed about the potential influence of the executive branch in the appointment procedure.
  • Lack of Clarity: The criteria for selecting “eminent citizens” lacked clarity, leading to concerns of political bias in their appointment.
  • Supersession of Seniority: The NJAC had the authority to recommend the appointment of judges based on factors other than seniority, which represented a departure from the extant collegium system.
  • Constitutional Challenge: Multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the NJAC were lodged with the Supreme Court, resulting in a historic legal battle.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

In October 2015, a constitutional panel of the Supreme Court ruled that the NJAC was unconstitutional and struck it down. The Court ruled that the NJAC violated the fundamental structure doctrine, which states that certain aspects of the Constitution, such as the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended.

Additionally, the Court upheld the collegium system as the prevalent method for judicial appointments, emphasizing the significance of judicial independence.

Consequences and Prospects for the Future

The Supreme Court’s decision had substantial effects on the process of judicial appointments in India:

  • Restatement of the Collegium System: The collegium system was reinstated as the primary method for appointing justices to the superior judiciary.
  • Continued Debate: The NJAC debate sparked a new conversation about the need for transparency and accountability in the judiciary. Critics argued that the collegium system required modifications to resolve its deficiencies.
  • Potential for Reform: Some suggested that the NJAC could be reformed to resolve the constitutional concerns raised by the Supreme Court, while retaining its goal of promoting openness and accountability.
  • Act of Balance: The debate illuminated the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability, an issue that continues to influence discussions on judicial reforms in India.

The Way Forward

The controversy surrounding the NJAC demonstrates the need for a nuanced approach to the reform of the Indian judiciary.

  • Transparency and Accountability: While preserving the independence of the judiciary, there is a need for increased transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process.
  • Reforming the Collegium: The collegium system can be reformed to include elements of transparency, such as the public disclosure of the reasons for appointments and transfers.
  • Eminent Citizens: The appointment process for eminent citizens to the NJAC should be made more transparent and impartial.
  • Public Debate: Broader public debate and consultation on judicial appointments can assist in striking a balance between the judiciary’s independence and accountability.
  • Continued Reform: The conversation about judicial reform should not conclude with the NJAC’s rejection; rather, it should continue to address the evolving requirements of India’s justice system.

The NJAC was a daring attempt to reform the process of judicial appointments in India, motivated by a desire to introduce transparency and accountability while preserving the judiciary’s independence. However, the Supreme Court’s rejection of this argument illuminated the complexities and delicate equilibrium between these principles. The NJAC debate continues to influence discussions on judicial reforms in India, emphasizing the need for a deliberate and well-balanced approach to resolving the shortcomings of the existing system while preserving the core values of the Indian judiciary.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here