Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The appointment of judges in India has been a subject of debate for decades. Initially, the executive held primacy, but this led to concerns about political influence. The emergence of the ‘Collegium’ system, through a series of Supreme Court judgments (starting with the First Judges Case in 1982, followed by the Second and Third Judges Cases in 1993 & 1998 respectively), aimed to secure the judiciary’s independence. However, criticisms regarding its opacity and lack of accountability led to the enactment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014. This Act sought to replace the Collegium with a new body, but was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. This answer will discuss the arguments for and against the NJAC Act, 2014.
The Existing Collegium System: A Brief Overview
Before delving into the NJAC, understanding the Collegium is essential. The Collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It recommends appointments and transfers of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Its decisions are binding on the government, though the government can seek clarification.
Arguments in Favour of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
- Increased Transparency: The NJAC aimed to make the appointment process more transparent by including representatives from the executive and civil society. The Collegium system was often criticized for its lack of transparency, with decisions being made behind closed doors.
- Enhanced Accountability: The NJAC included members who were accountable to the public, unlike the judges of the Collegium. This was seen as a way to increase accountability in the appointment process.
- Broader Representation: The NJAC included the Law Minister and two eminent persons, potentially bringing diverse perspectives to the selection process. This could have led to a more representative judiciary.
- Addressing Backlog & Delays: Proponents argued that the NJAC could expedite the appointment process, reducing the backlog of cases and delays in justice delivery. The Collegium system was often slow and cumbersome.
- Constitutional Amendment: The NJAC was established through a constitutional amendment (99th Amendment Act, 2014), demonstrating a strong political will to reform the judicial appointment process.
Arguments Against the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
- Threat to Judicial Independence: The primary concern was that the NJAC would compromise the independence of the judiciary. The inclusion of the Law Minister and other political appointees raised fears of executive interference in judicial appointments.
- Potential for Political Favoritism: Critics argued that the NJAC could be susceptible to political influence, leading to the appointment of judges who are aligned with the ruling party.
- Violation of the ‘Basic Structure’ Doctrine: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, holding that it violated the ‘basic structure’ doctrine of the Constitution, specifically the principle of judicial independence. The Court held that the NJAC altered the core principles established in the Judges Cases.
- Lack of Expertise: Concerns were raised about the expertise of non-judicial members in assessing the suitability of candidates for judicial positions.
- Compromised Collegiality: The NJAC could disrupt the collegiality among judges, which is considered essential for the functioning of the judiciary.
Comparative Analysis: NJAC vs. Collegium
| Feature | Collegium System | National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | CJI & 4 senior-most judges of SC | CJI, 2 senior-most judges of SC, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons |
| Transparency | Low | Higher (intended) |
| Accountability | Low | Higher (intended) |
| Judicial Independence | High | Potentially compromised |
| Executive Influence | Minimal | Significant |
The Supreme Court’s Verdict (2015)
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment. The Court reaffirmed the primacy of the Collegium system, stating that judicial independence was a fundamental aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court also suggested improvements to the Collegium system to enhance transparency and accountability, but stopped short of prescribing a specific mechanism.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the NJAC Act, 2014, highlights the inherent tension between ensuring judicial independence and promoting transparency and accountability in the appointment of judges. While the NJAC aimed to address the perceived shortcomings of the Collegium system, the Supreme Court rightly recognized the potential threat it posed to the judiciary’s independence. The current focus should be on reforming the Collegium system itself, incorporating mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability without compromising its core principles. A continued dialogue between the judiciary, the executive, and civil society is crucial for finding a sustainable solution to this complex issue.
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.