Q2. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

Model Answer:

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s landmark ruling in 2015 struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, declaring it unconstitutional. The NJAC sought to replace the existing Collegium system for appointing judges in the higher judiciary. This decision, delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench in a 4:1 majority, reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process. The judgement raised significant debates regarding the separation of powers, judicial independence, and transparency in judicial appointments.

Body

Collegium System vs. NJAC

The Collegium system, established through the Second Judges’ Case (1993), vests the power of appointing judges in the hands of senior judges of the Supreme Court. However, this system has been criticized for being opaque and lacking accountability.

The NJAC Act was an attempt to introduce more transparency and accountability by involving members outside the judiciary in the appointment process, including the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons. However, the Supreme Court struck it down, arguing that it compromised the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key Arguments in the Judgement

1. Judicial Independence: The Court ruled that judicial independence is a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine, as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The NJAC, by involving the executive in the appointment process, was seen as infringing upon this principle.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court held that the NJAC Act violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution by diluting the exclusive power of the judiciary in appointing judges. This doctrine asserts that certain constitutional features cannot be altered by Parliament, even through amendments.
3. Transparency and Accountability: While the Collegium system has been criticized for lacking transparency, the Court opined that the NJAC was not the right solution, as it could lead to political interference in judicial appointments. The judiciary, while recognizing the shortcomings of the Collegium system, emphasized the need for reforms from within rather than involving the executive.
4. Dissenting Opinion: Justice J. Chelameswar, the sole dissenter, argued that the Collegium system is non-transparent and needs to be reformed. He favoured the NJAC for introducing greater accountability in judicial appointments.

Aftermath and Reforms

Post-judgement, the Supreme Court promised to introduce reforms in the Collegium system. In 2017, the Court approved a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) aimed at improving transparency in judicial appointments, though significant challenges remain.

As of 2024, delays in judicial appointments continue to plague the system. For example, the vacancies in the Supreme Court and High Courts have resulted in pendency of cases, with over 69,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court and more than 4.5 million cases in the High Courts. The debate on judicial accountability and independence remains unresolved, with growing calls for further reforms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgement on the NJAC Act reaffirmed the judiciary's control over its appointments but highlighted the need for internal reforms within the Collegium system. While the NJAC's dismissal protected judicial independence, the need for greater transparency and efficiency in appointments persists, requiring a balanced approach that addresses both concerns of independence and accountability. 

‍

Instant Mains Evaluation with SuperKalam

✅ Now that you have gone through the model answer, try practicing and writing it in your own words and evaluate it instantly with SuperKalam here - Evaluate Mains Answer instantly