Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2015, fundamentally altered the process of appointing members to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Prior to this, the collegium system, a process where judges appointed other judges, was in place. The amendment aimed to establish a more transparent and accountable system for judicial appointments, responding to long-standing criticisms of the collegium’s opacity. This amendment sought to replace the existing collegium system with a new body, the NJAC, intending to balance judicial independence with executive and legislative oversight.
Background and Context
The collegium system, evolved through Supreme Court judgments in the Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998), had faced criticism for being non-transparent and lacking broad-based participation. Concerns were raised about nepotism and the exclusion of diverse perspectives in judicial appointments. The executive branch, particularly, felt excluded from the process, arguing it undermined the principle of separation of powers. These concerns led to calls for a more inclusive and accountable mechanism.
Provisions of the 99th Amendment
The 99th Amendment introduced the following key changes:
- Establishment of the NJAC: It replaced the collegium system with a six-member NJAC.
- Composition of the NJAC: The NJAC comprised:
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Chairperson
- Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
- The Union Minister of Law and Justice
- Two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
- Appointment Process: The NJAC was empowered to recommend persons for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was to function based on a majority vote, with a quorum of five members.
- Corresponding Changes to Existing Laws: The amendment also necessitated changes to Article 124 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of judges.
The National Judicial Appointments Act, 2014
Alongside the 99th Amendment, the National Judicial Appointments Act, 2014, was passed to give effect to the provisions of the amendment. This Act detailed the procedures for the functioning of the NJAC, including the nomination of eminent persons and the process for making recommendations.
Judicial Scrutiny and Subsequent Developments
The NJAC was challenged in the Supreme Court through a batch of petitions. In October 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench, in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India case, declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional. The Court held that the amendment undermined the independence of the judiciary and violated the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. The Court reinstated the collegium system, but with a call for greater transparency and accountability within the existing framework.
Impact and Significance
Despite its short lifespan, the 99th Amendment sparked a national debate on judicial appointments and the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. While the NJAC was struck down, the concerns it sought to address – transparency and accountability – remain relevant. The Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the collegium system, while upholding judicial independence, also highlighted the need for reforms to improve the functioning of the collegium.
| Feature | Collegium System (Pre-99th Amendment) | NJAC (99th Amendment) |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | Senior Judges of the Supreme Court | CJI, Senior Judges, Law Minister, Eminent Persons |
| Transparency | Limited | Aimed for greater transparency |
| Accountability | Limited | Increased through broader participation |
| Constitutional Validity | Upheld by the Supreme Court | Struck down by the Supreme Court |
Conclusion
The 99th Amendment, though ultimately unsuccessful in replacing the collegium system, served as a crucial catalyst for discussions on judicial appointments in India. The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the importance of maintaining judicial independence as a cornerstone of the Constitution. The debate continues regarding the optimal mechanism for appointing judges, with ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and accountability within the existing collegium framework. The need for a robust and inclusive system remains a priority for strengthening the Indian judiciary.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.