GS Question

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.