National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Judiciary
Source: IE
Context: The discovery of cash at the home of Delhi HC Judge Yashwant Varma has renewed debate over judicial appointments.
• Vice President remarked that the situation could have been different had the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) not been struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
About National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
• What is NJAC? Proposed Law:
• Proposed Law:
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014. It sought to replace the collegium system with a multi-stakeholder body to appoint judges to the SC and HCs.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014. It sought to replace the collegium system with a multi-stakeholder body to appoint judges to the SC and HCs.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and NJAC Act, 2014.
• It sought to replace the collegium system with a multi-stakeholder body to appoint judges to the SC and HCs.
• Composition of NJAC:
• Chief Justice of India (Chairperson) Two senior-most SC judges Union Law Minister Two eminent persons (selected by PM, CJI, and LoP, with one from SC/ST/OBC/women/minorities)
• Chief Justice of India (Chairperson) Two senior-most SC judges Union Law Minister Two eminent persons (selected by PM, CJI, and LoP, with one from SC/ST/OBC/women/minorities)
• Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
• Two senior-most SC judges
• Union Law Minister
• Two eminent persons (selected by PM, CJI, and LoP, with one from SC/ST/OBC/women/minorities)
• Why Was NJAC Struck Down?
• In 2015, a 5-judge Bench (4:1) ruled NJAC unconstitutional as it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court observed that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure and NJAC allowed the executive to interfere via veto powers. Concerns over independence of judiciary and possible 3-3 deadlocks led to the rejection of the law.
• In 2015, a 5-judge Bench (4:1) ruled NJAC unconstitutional as it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court observed that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure and NJAC allowed the executive to interfere via veto powers. Concerns over independence of judiciary and possible 3-3 deadlocks led to the rejection of the law.
• In 2015, a 5-judge Bench (4:1) ruled NJAC unconstitutional as it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• The Court observed that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure and NJAC allowed the executive to interfere via veto powers.
• Concerns over independence of judiciary and possible 3-3 deadlocks led to the rejection of the law.
Why India Needs NJAC:
• Opaque Collegium Process: Justice Ruma Pal termed the collegium as a “well-kept secret”, highlighting lack of transparency and accountability.
• Political Consensus on NJAC: Passed with overwhelming majority in Parliament and ratified by 16 state legislatures, showing rare bipartisan support.
• Growing Allegations of Nepotism: Alleged lobbying and favoritism within collegium undermine merit and fairness in appointments.
• Need for Diverse Input: Inclusion of eminent persons could bring external perspectives and help curb internal biases.
• Dysfunctional Collegium: Even Justice Kurian Joseph, part of the majority in NJAC case, later regretted striking it down, citing ongoing flaws in collegium functioning.
Challenges to Reinstating NJAC
• Judicial Resistance: Judiciary defends its primacy as part of the basic structure, making reversal unlikely without careful negotiation.
• Veto Provision Issue: The veto power given to non-judicial members led to fears of executive overreach.
• Lack of Clear Selection Criteria: Ambiguity in how “eminent persons” would be chosen raises concerns over potential politicization.
• Risk of Deadlock: Equal representation of judiciary and non-judiciary in NJAC could lead to stalemates in decision-making.
• Constitutional Hurdles: Any attempt to reinstate NJAC must pass judicial review and maintain basic structure compliance.
Way Ahead:
• Balanced Redesign: A revised NJAC model must ensure judicial primacy while incorporating transparency and checks.
• Constitutional Safeguards: Amend NJAC provisions to limit veto powers, or provide casting vote to CJI to avoid deadlock.
• Transparent Collegium Reforms: Even if NJAC isn’t revived, reforming collegium by publishing selection criteria and feedback reports is necessary.
• Stakeholder Consultation: Involve judiciary, executive, legal experts, and civil society in designing a more acceptable framework.
• Judicial Accountability Bill: Enact complementary legislation for performance review, complaint redressal, and discipline of judges.
Conclusion:
The NJAC verdict remains a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history. While judicial independence must be preserved, reforms are essential to restore public confidence in appointments. A rebalanced NJAC, rooted in transparency and constitutional values, could be the way forward.
• Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (UPSC-2021)