The Supreme Court's judgement on the 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' was highly significant as it dealt with the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Act was enacted with the intent to establish a commission, consisting of judges and members appointed by the executive, to recommend candidates for judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional and upheld the existing collegium system.

One of the primary arguments put forth by the Court was that the Act impinged upon the basic structure of the Constitution, specifically the independence of the judiciary. The collegium system, which had been in place since the early 1990s, emphasized the role of judges in appointing their peers, ensuring a certain degree of insulation from political interference. The Act, on the other hand, sought to introduce executive involvement in the appointment process, potentially undermining this independence.

The Court further reasoned that since the Constitution did not expressly provide for the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), the Act violated the principle of separation of powers. The judiciary saw this as an encroachment on its authority to maintain the balance of powers within the constitutional framework. The judgment emphasized that the judiciary's independence ensures its role as a check and balance against potential abuse of power by the executive and legislative branches.

Another major contention against the Act was the lack of adequate representation for the voices of the judiciary. The collegium system, criticized for its opacity and limited consultations, was nevertheless seen as an improvement over the executive-controlled appointments system that existed before. The Act, by virtue of its composition and provisions, was viewed as lacking the necessary safeguards to protect against political or arbitrary appointments.

However, it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court's judgement also alluded to the need for reforms within the collegium system. It acknowledged the concerns surrounding its lack of transparency, accountability, and the absence of a well-defined mechanism for selection and appointment of judges. This acknowledgement has led to subsequent discussions on improving the collegium system to address these shortcomings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgement on the 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' affirmed the primacy of the collegium system and upheld the independence of the judiciary. The decision highlighted the importance of insulating the appointment process from executive influence and maintaining a balanced separation of powers. While the judgement was significant in safeguarding the judiciary's autonomy, it also highlighted the need for reforms within the existing system.

Critical Examination of the Supreme Court's Judgement on the NJAC Act, 2014:

The Supreme Court's judgement on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 was a landmark decision that had far-reaching implications for the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary of India. The judgement, delivered in October 2015, struck down the NJAC Act, declaring it unconstitutional. This essay will critically examine the Supreme Court's reasoning and its impact on the judicial appointment process.

The NJAC Act and its Aims:

The NJAC Act, passed in 2014, aimed to replace the existing collegium system for appointing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The proposed system would have included a six-member commission, comprising:

• The Chief Justice of India (CJI)
• Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
• The Union Minister of Law and Justice
• Two eminent persons, one of whom would be a woman, to be nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha

The Act intended to bring transparency and accountability to the process, while also increasing the government's role in judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court's Judgement:

The Supreme Court, in its majority judgement, declared the NJAC Act unconstitutional for several reasons:

• Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court argued that the NJAC Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence. The involvement of the Executive in the appointment process, the Court reasoned, would compromise the judiciary's independence and make it susceptible to political influence.
• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The Court found that the NJAC Act failed to provide sufficient transparency and accountability mechanisms. The nomination process for the eminent persons lacked clarity and could be manipulated.
• Subjectivity and Influence: The Court expressed concerns about the subjective nature of the selection criteria and the potential for undue influence by the Executive.
• Role of the CJI: The Court emphasized the pivotal role of the CJI in the appointment process, arguing that the NJAC Act diminished the CJI's authority and undermined the collegium system's effectiveness.

Arguments in Favor of the NJAC Act:

While the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, there were arguments in favor of the proposed system:

• Increased Transparency: The NJAC Act aimed to make the appointment process more transparent by involving representatives of the Executive and eminent persons.
• Wider Representation: The inclusion of eminent persons from various fields was seen as a way to bring diverse perspectives to the selection process and ensure representation from marginalized communities.
• Accountability: The Act sought to introduce accountability by subjecting the selection process to scrutiny by the Executive and public.

The Aftermath and its Implications:

The Supreme Court's judgement brought the issue of judicial appointments back to the collegium system. However, the debate continues about the effectiveness and transparency of this system.

Some criticisms of the collegium system include:

• Lack of Transparency: The collegium system operates largely in secrecy, with no clear guidelines or mechanisms for public scrutiny.
• Elite Bias: Critics argue that the collegium system perpetuates an elitist bias, favoring candidates from specific backgrounds and institutions.
• Political Influence: While the judiciary maintains it operates independently, there are concerns about potential political influence in the collegium's decisions.

Moving Forward:

The issue of judicial appointments remains a contentious one. There is a need for a balanced approach that ensures both judicial independence and transparency.

Possible reforms include:

• Clearer Selection Criteria: Establishing transparent and objective selection criteria can enhance transparency and reduce subjectivity in the appointment process.
• Public Consultation: Involving the public in the selection process through mechanisms like public hearings or online forums can increase accountability.
• Independent Oversight Mechanism: An independent body could be established to oversee the appointment process and ensure fairness and accountability.

The debate surrounding judicial appointments in India is a complex one with no easy solutions. The Supreme Court's judgement on the NJAC Act sparked a vital discussion about the balance between judicial independence, transparency, and accountability. Moving forward, it is crucial to find a system that meets these competing demands while ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court's judgment on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC Act) is a landmark decision that has significant implications for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India.

Background: The NJAC Act was enacted in 2014 to replace the Collegium system of appointing judges to the higher judiciary, which had been in place since 1993. The Collegium system, also known as the "judges-selecting-judges" system, gave the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a group of senior judges the power to select and recommend candidates for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The NJAC Act sought to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to make appointments to the higher judiciary, comprising the CJI, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister, and two "eminent persons" to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Judgment: On October 16, 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a verdict striking down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that the Act violated the principle of judicial independence and the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a majority of 4:1, with Justice Khehar writing the majority opinion.

Reasons for striking down the NJAC Act:

1. Infringement of judicial independence: The Court held that the NJAC Act compromised judicial independence by allowing the Law Minister and the two "eminent persons" to play a significant role in the appointment process. This, the Court feared, would lead to political interference in the judiciary.
2. Violation of the basic structure of the Constitution: The Court reiterated that the independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be altered or amended.
3. Lack of transparency and accountability: The Court criticized the NJAC Act for lacking transparency and accountability in the appointment process, which could lead to arbitrariness and nepotism.
4. Flawed composition of the NJAC: The Court questioned the inclusion of the Law Minister and the two "eminent persons" in the NJAC, arguing that this would compromise the independence of the judiciary.

Criticisms and implications:

1. Restoration of the Collegium system: The Supreme Court's judgment effectively restored the Collegium system, which has been criticized for being opaque, discriminatory, and subject to nepotism.
2. Lack of diverse perspectives: The Collegium system has been accused of perpetuating a "judicial oligarchy," where a small group of judges with similar backgrounds and perspectives dominate the appointment process.
3. Delayed appointments: The judgment has led to delays in appointments to the higher judiciary, with many vacancies remaining unfilled for extended periods.
4. Executive-judiciary collision: The judgment has been seen as a setback for the Executive's efforts to reform the judicial appointment process and bring in greater transparency and accountability.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment on the NJAC Act has significant implications for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India. While the judgment aims to protect judicial independence, it has also been criticized for perpetuating the Collegium system, which has its own set of limitations. The ongoing debate highlights the need for a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive system of judicial appointments in India.