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.
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.
Recent debates on judicial independence were reignited when the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 in 2015, reaffirming the collegium system's constitutional validity.
Constitutional Framework of NJAC Act
- Composition: Six-member commission including CJI, two senior-most SC judges, Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons
- Selection Process: Eminent persons nominated by committee of PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition
- Legislative Support: Passed by Parliament with 99th Constitutional Amendment and ratified by over half the state legislatures
- Objective: Replace collegium system established through Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998)
- Transparency Mechanism: Written records and reasoned decisions for all appointments
Supreme Court's Rejection: Key Arguments
| Aspect | Court's Position | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Structure | NJAC violates judicial independence | Executive presence compromises autonomy |
| Separation of Powers | Maintained current balance | Prevents executive control over judiciary |
| Voting Rights | Equal votes create deadlocks | Non-judicial members could block appointments |
| Constitutional Validity | 99th Amendment unconstitutional | Alters basic structure beyond amendment power |
Critical Assessment of the Judgment
Strengths of SC Decision:
- Independence Protection: Preserved judicial autonomy from executive interference
- Constitutional Sanctity: Upheld basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Precedent Consistency: Maintained continuity with earlier collegium judgments
- Separation of Powers: Protected constitutional balance between three organs
- Institutional Integrity: Prevented potential political influence in judicial appointments
Limitations and Criticisms:
- Transparency Deficit: Justice Chelameswar's dissent highlighted collegium's opacity
- Accountability Gap: No external oversight mechanism for judicial appointments
- Reform Opportunity: Missed chance to address systemic appointment delays
- Democratic Participation: Excluded broader stakeholder involvement in selection process
- Efficiency Issues: 2014-2024 data shows persistent vacancies despite 1,038 appointments across higher judiciary
The judgment reflects tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability. While protecting constitutional principles, it necessitates collegium reforms through transparency measures like detailed resolution publication and timely appointment processes to maintain public trust in judicial institutions.
Answer Length
Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.
Indian Polity PYQs from 2017
- 15 MarksView Answer
Is the National Commission for Women able to strategize and tackle the problems that women face in both public and private spheres? Give reasons in support of your answer.
- 15 MarksView Answer
To enhance the quality of democracy in India the The Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?
- 15 MarksView Answer
The Indian Constitution has provisions for holding joint sessions of the two houses of the Parliament. Enumerate the occasions when this would normally happen and also the occasions when it cannot, with reasons thereof.
- 15 MarksView Answer
Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on the Right to Privacy.
- 15 MarksView Answer
Explain the salient features of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. Do you think it is efficacious enough ‘to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for the common national market for goods and services’?
- 10 MarksView Answer
To ensure the effective implementation of policies addressing water, sanitation and hygiene needs, the identification of beneficiary segments is to be synchronized with the anticipated outcomes’ Examine the statement in the context of the WASH scheme.
In just 60 sec
Evaluate your handwritten answer
- Get detailed feedback
- Model Answer after evaluation
Model Answers by Subject
Crack UPSC with your
Personal AI Mentor
An AI-powered ecosystem to learn, practice, and evaluate with discipline
