Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The appointment of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India is a cornerstone of the nation's judicial system, vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice. Currently, the process, governed by the Collegium System, has been a subject of ongoing debate and criticism. The landmark *Three Judges Cases* (1982, 1993, and 2002) established this system, aiming to insulate judicial appointments from executive interference. However, concerns regarding opacity, lack of accountability, and potential for bias have spurred calls for reform. This answer will examine the existing system, analyze potential alternatives, and propose a path forward for a more robust and transparent judicial appointment process.
The Current System: The Collegium System
The Collegium System, derived from the *Three Judges Cases*, operates as follows:
- Supreme Court: Recommendations are made by a Collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges.
- High Courts: Recommendations are made by a Collegium comprising the CJI and the two senior-most judges of the High Court. The opinions of state High Court Chief Justices are also considered.
- The executive government then issues warrants of appointment based on these recommendations.
The system’s intention was to protect judicial independence from political influence. However, it has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability.
Shortcomings of the Existing System
- Lack of Transparency: The Collegium's deliberations are opaque, with limited public information about the selection process.
- Limited Accountability: There’s no formal mechanism to hold the Collegium accountable for its decisions.
- Executive Exclusion: The significant exclusion of the executive branch raises concerns about representation of diverse viewpoints.
- Nepotism and Favoritism: The absence of objective criteria and public scrutiny has led to accusations of nepotism and favoritism.
- Delay and Backlog: The system's inefficiencies contribute to delays in appointments, leading to a backlog of cases.
Potential Alternatives and Their Evaluation
1. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
The NJAC was a constitutional amendment (99th Amendment) that sought to replace the Collegium system. It proposed a commission with members from the judiciary, executive, and the bar. However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, deemed unconstitutional as it undermined judicial independence.
| Aspect | NJAC |
|---|---|
| Advantages | Increased representation, reduced executive exclusion, potential for greater transparency. |
| Disadvantages | Potential for executive interference, compromise of judicial independence (as deemed by the Supreme Court). |
2. Hybrid System (Modified Collegium)
This model attempts to retain the core of the Collegium system while incorporating elements of transparency and accountability. Suggestions include:
- Publishing Collegium Recommendations: Making the Collegium's rationale for selections public.
- Including Parliamentary Scrutiny: Introducing a mechanism for Parliamentary review of Collegium recommendations.
- Defining Objective Criteria: Establishing clear and objective criteria for judicial selection, such as experience, legal acumen, and integrity.
- Independent Oversight Body: Creating an independent body to evaluate judicial candidates and provide feedback to the Collegium.
3. Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Involvement
Increased involvement of Judicial Service Commissions (JSCs) in the initial screening and shortlisting of candidates could broaden the pool of potential judges and introduce a layer of merit-based selection.
Recommended Approach: A Phased Hybrid System
A phased hybrid system, building upon the existing Collegium structure, offers the most pragmatic path forward.
- Phase 1 (Immediate): Mandatory publication of Collegium recommendations along with reasons for selection/rejection.
- Phase 2 (Within 1 Year): Establishment of a Parliamentary Oversight Committee with the power to seek clarifications from the Collegium. This committee should not have veto power but can raise concerns and seek explanations.
- Phase 3 (Within 2 Years): Formalize objective criteria for judicial selection and incorporate JSC input in the initial screening process. Consider creating an independent evaluation panel to provide feedback to the Collegium, drawing experts from diverse fields.
This approach balances the need for judicial independence with the imperative of transparency and accountability. It allows for gradual reform, minimizing disruption to the judicial system while addressing its shortcomings.
Case Study: The Prashant Kumar vs. Union of India (2015) Case
This case revolved around the challenge to the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which established the NJAC. The Supreme Court’s judgment, while striking down the NJAC, underscored the importance of judicial independence and the need for a mechanism that protects it. The case highlights the difficulty in finding a balance between judicial independence and executive accountability in judicial appointments.
Conclusion
The appointment of judges is a critical function for the health of India's democracy. While the Collegium system has served a purpose in safeguarding judicial independence, its shortcomings are undeniable. A phased hybrid system, incorporating transparency, parliamentary oversight, and objective criteria, offers a viable path forward. This approach must be implemented cautiously, ensuring that it strengthens the judiciary and enhances public trust, rather than compromising its vital role in upholding the rule of law. Continuous evaluation and refinement of the process will be essential to ensure its effectiveness.
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.