Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The appointment of judges in India has been a subject of ongoing debate, oscillating between the desire for judicial independence and the need for greater transparency and accountability. The existing system, known as the Collegium system, evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgments (specifically, the ‘Three Judges Cases’ of 1982, 1993, and 1998). Dissatisfied with this system, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 was enacted by the Parliament, aiming to replace the Collegium. However, the Supreme Court, in October 2015, struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, reaffirming the primacy of the Collegium system. This judgment sparked considerable controversy and continues to shape the discourse on judicial appointments in India.
Background: The NJAC Act, 2014
The NJAC Act, 2014, sought to establish a new body for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Commission comprised the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of Opposition.
Arguments in Favour of the NJAC
- Increased Accountability: Proponents argued that the NJAC would make the appointment process more accountable to the public, as it included political representatives and eminent citizens.
- Wider Representation: The inclusion of diverse perspectives was expected to lead to a more representative judiciary.
- Addressing Collegium’s Opaque Nature: The NJAC aimed to address the perceived lack of transparency in the Collegium system.
- Constitutional Amendment: The 99th Constitutional Amendment, passed alongside the NJAC Act, demonstrated parliamentary intent to reform the appointment process.
Arguments Against the NJAC
- Threat to Judicial Independence: Critics argued that the involvement of the executive branch (through the Law Minister) and eminent citizens could compromise the independence of the judiciary.
- Violation of ‘Basic Structure’: The petitioners contended that the NJAC Act violated the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, specifically the principle of judicial independence, which had been established as an essential feature of the Constitution in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
- Executive Dominance: Concerns were raised that the executive could exert undue influence over judicial appointments, potentially leading to a biased judiciary.
The Supreme Court’s Judgement (October 2015)
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment. The Court held that the NJAC Act undermined the principle of judicial independence, a core element of the basic structure of the Constitution. The majority opinion, authored by Justice J.S. Khehar, found that the inclusion of the Law Minister and eminent citizens in the appointment process would be detrimental to the judiciary’s independence. The Court reasoned that the executive’s involvement could lead to political considerations influencing judicial appointments. Justice Chelameswar dissented, arguing that the Collegium system itself lacked transparency and accountability.
Implications of the Judgement
- Reaffirmation of the Collegium System: The judgment effectively reinstated the Collegium system as the sole authority for appointing judges.
- Continued Debate on Reform: The debate surrounding judicial appointments continues, with calls for greater transparency and accountability within the Collegium system.
- Need for a More Inclusive System: The judgment highlighted the need for a system that balances judicial independence with public accountability.
- Government Efforts for Transparency: Post-judgment, the government has attempted to increase transparency by publishing the Collegium’s recommendations and reasons for rejection.
| Feature | Collegium System | NJAC System (as proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | CJI and four senior-most judges of the SC | CJI, two senior-most SC judges, Law Minister, two eminent persons |
| Executive Involvement | None | Law Minister as a member |
| Transparency | Historically limited, improving recently | Potentially higher due to public representation |
| Judicial Independence | Generally considered to safeguard independence | Concerns about potential executive influence |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on the NJAC Act, while upholding judicial independence, has left the issue of judicial appointments unresolved. The Collegium system, despite being reinstated, continues to face criticism for its lack of transparency. A more inclusive and accountable system, perhaps involving a broader range of stakeholders while safeguarding judicial independence, remains a crucial need for strengthening the Indian judiciary. The ongoing efforts to enhance transparency within the Collegium are a step in the right direction, but a more comprehensive reform may be necessary to address the concerns surrounding judicial appointments.
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.