Subject: Indian Polity

The landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in 2015 on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act marked a critical juncture in India's judicial appointment system, highlighting the delicate balance between judicial independence and executive participation.

Key Features of NJAC Act and Constitutional Amendment

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act established NJAC to replace the existing collegium system for appointing judges to higher judiciary.
• The commission proposed a six-member body including:
  • Chief Justice of India (Chairperson).
  • Two senior-most Supreme Court judges.
  • Union Law Minister.
  • Two eminent persons nominated by committee comprising PM, CJI and Leader of Opposition.

Grounds for Striking Down NJAC

• Violation of Basic Structure: The court held that judicial independence, being part of the basic structure, was compromised by giving substantial role to executive.
• Primacy of Judiciary: The 4:1 majority verdict emphasized that judicial appointments cannot be left to executive discretion.
• Constitutional Supremacy: The court found that NJAC structure diluted the principle of judicial primacy established through Three Judges Cases.

Implications of the Judgment

• Restoration of Collegium: The ruling reinstated the collegium system comprising CJI and four senior-most SC judges.
• Executive's Limited Role: The judgment restricted executive's involvement in judicial appointments to maintain independence.
• International Comparison: Unlike USA's system where President nominates and Senate confirms federal judges, India maintained judicial primacy in appointments.

Way Forward

• Memorandum of Procedure: Need for revised guidelines for appointments ensuring transparency.
• Balanced Approach: Necessity to find middle ground between judicial independence and accountability.

The NJAC judgment reaffirmed the principle of judicial independence while highlighting the need for reforms in the appointment process. The ongoing debate necessitates finding a balance between autonomy and accountability, perhaps through mechanisms like the National Judicial Oversight Committee or reformed collegium system, ensuring both independence and efficiency in judicial appointments.