Law and You > Constitutional Law > National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reforming the process of judicial appointments in India. The NJAC sought to replace the existing Collegium system with a commission comprising members from the judiciary, executive, and civil society.
National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2014
- On August 11, 2014, Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Law and Justice, introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, in the Lok Sabha.
- The Constitutional (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014, which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, was introduced concurrently with the bill (NJAC).
- Article 124A, a new article specifying the NJAC’s composition, was to be added to the Constitution.
- The bill outlines the steps the National Judicial Appointments Commission should take while suggesting candidates for the positions of Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court (SC) judges, as well as Chief Justice and other High Court judges (HC).
Objectives NJAC:
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed with several objectives aimed at reforming the process of judicial appointments in India. Here are the main objectives of the NJAC:
- Transparency: One of the primary objectives of the NJAC was to introduce greater transparency in the process of judicial appointments. The commission was envisioned to conduct its deliberations and decision-making openly, providing reasons for its recommendations and ensuring that the appointment process was conducted in a transparent manner.
- Accountability: The NJAC aimed to promote accountability in judicial appointments by establishing mechanisms for oversight and review of its decisions. This would have included ensuring that the commission’s recommendations were based on objective criteria and made in accordance with established legal principles.
- Inclusivity: The NJAC sought to ensure inclusivity in judicial appointments by considering a wide range of factors, including regional representation, gender diversity, and professional background, in its recommendations. This would have helped to promote diversity and representation within the judiciary.
- Expertise: By including members from the judiciary, executive, and civil society, the NJAC aimed to leverage diverse expertise and perspectives in the process of judicial appointments. This would have helped to ensure that candidates for judicial positions were evaluated based on their qualifications, integrity, and suitability for the role.
- Efficiency: The NJAC aimed to improve the efficiency of the process of judicial appointments by streamlining procedures and reducing delays. This would have included establishing clear timelines for the appointment process and ensuring that vacancies in the judiciary were filled in a timely manner.
- Promotion of Judicial Independence: While introducing greater transparency and accountability, the NJAC also aimed to uphold the principle of judicial independence. The commission was intended to provide a forum for collaborative decision-making involving multiple stakeholders while safeguarding the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary.
Composition of NJAC:
The NJAC composition was designed to provide a broader and more participatory process for judicial appointments. The NJAC was envisioned as a six-member body. It consists of the following individuals:
- Chief Justice of India (CJI): The NJAC was to include the Chief Justice of India as its chairperson. The CJI is the head of the Indian judiciary and would have played a crucial role in the decision-making process of the commission.
- Two Senior Judges of the Supreme Court: The NJAC was to include two senior judges of the Supreme Court of India. The collegium of judges would choose them. These judges would serve as members of the Commission for a specific term and would have provided valuable insights and perspectives during the deliberations of the commission.
- Union Minister of Law and Justice: The NJAC would have included the Union Minister of Law and Justice as a member representing the executive branch of the government. This member would have represented the interests of the government in the appointment process.
- Two Eminent Persons: The NJAC was proposed to have two eminent persons as members who would have been nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the single largest opposition party. These eminent persons would have represented civil society and brought diverse perspectives to the commission.
The proposed composition aimed to create a balanced and representative body responsible for recommending candidates for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, as well as transfers and appointments of Chief Justices and other judges
Functions of NJAC:
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was proposed to have several key functions aimed at reforming the process of judicial appointments in India. Here are the main functions envisioned for the NJAC:
Recommendation of Judicial Appointments: The primary function of the NJAC was to recommend candidates for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. This included considering the qualifications, integrity, and suitability of candidates for elevation to the judiciary.
Transfer of Judges: The NJAC was tasked with recommending transfers of judges between High Courts and the Supreme Court, as well as appointments and transfers of Chief Justices and other judges within the High Courts.
Consultation with Stakeholders: The NJAC was envisioned to engage in consultations with various stakeholders, including the judiciary, executive, and civil society, in the process of judicial appointments. This would have involved soliciting inputs and feedback from relevant stakeholders to inform its decision-making.
Ensuring Diversity and Representation: One of the functions of the NJAC was to ensure diversity and representation within the judiciary by considering factors such as regional representation, gender diversity, and professional background in its recommendations for judicial appointments.
Promoting Transparency and Accountability: The NJAC was expected to promote greater transparency and accountability in the process of judicial appointments by making its deliberations and decisions accessible to the public. This would have included providing reasons for its recommendations and ensuring that the appointment process was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Procedure for Filling up Vacancies:
- The Centre Government will make a reference to the NJAC in cases of vacancies arising in the Supreme Court or High Courts.
- Existing vacancies would be notified to the NJAC within thirty days of the commencement of the Act.
- A reference would be made to the NJAC six months prior to when a vacancy arises due to the completion of a term.
- In scenarios of vacancy due to the death or resignation of judges, a reference would be made to the NJAC within thirty days of the occurrence of such events.
Controversy and Legal Challenges to NJAC:
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) faced significant controversy and legal challenges, primarily regarding its constitutionality and potential impact on judicial independence. Here are the key points of controversy and legal challenges surrounding the NJAC:
- Constitutional Challenge: The NJAC Act was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the principle of judicial independence. Critics argued that the inclusion of members from the executive branch in the appointment process could compromise the independence of the judiciary and undermine the separation of powers.
- Judicial Independence: One of the primary concerns raised against the NJAC was its potential to undermine judicial independence. Critics argued that the involvement of members from the executive branch, such as the Union Minister of Law and Justice, in the appointment process could lead to political interference and influence over judicial appointments, thereby compromising the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary.
- Lack of Consultation with Judiciary: Another point of contention was the perceived lack of consultation with the judiciary in the establishment of the NJAC. Critics argued that the judiciary should have been more closely involved in the process of drafting and finalizing the NJAC Act to ensure that it was compatible with constitutional principles and judicial independence.
- Implications for Judicial Autonomy: The NJAC Act was seen as a departure from the existing Collegium system, which vested primary responsibility for judicial appointments with the judiciary. Critics argued that the NJAC could potentially erode the autonomy and authority of the judiciary by introducing external influences into the appointment process.
Ultimately, in 2015 in fourth judges case, the five-judge bench comprising Justice Madan Lokur, Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Kurian Joseph, and Justice Jasti Chelameshwar struck down the NJAC Act along with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act in a 4:1 ratio terming them unconstitutional. The court reaffirmed the primacy of the Collegium system for judicial appointments, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers. The decision was met with both support and criticism, with ongoing debates about the need for reforms to the judicial appointment process while upholding the principles of judicial independence and constitutionalism.
Every judge gave out their individual ratio decidendi, with each of them explaining their individual reasoning behind coming to the conclusion.
Justice Khehar attacked the NJAC Act on following points:
- The involvement of the legislature in the appointment of judges might lead to the creation of a culture of ‘reciprocity.’ By reciprocity, Justice Khehar meant that judges might have the feeling of having to pay back the political executive as a consideration for their appointment to the post of judge and that it would lead to an environment where the appointment of judges might be impacted due to political considerations.
- He raised another strong point that the future judges appointed under NJAC cannot be expected to be independent-minded if the Union Law Minister is the member of the commission responsible for their appointment.
- He also pointed out by giving examples that often there are cases that come to the judiciary where there is the involvement of some political figures such as the Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any other minister from the opposition as well; in such scenarios, the presence of the Minister of Law and Justice as an ex-officio member of NJAC is highly questionable.
Justice Chelameshwar supported the NJAC Act on following points:
- He pointed out that transparency is an extremely vital factor in constitutional governance. He reasoned that it becomes all the more important in the process of appointment. He praised the NJAC Act for involving a smooth and transparent process for the appointment of judges.
- He expressed that the proceedings of the collegium are inaccessible to the public and, therefore, it lacks transparency.
- He supported Advocate General Mukul Rohtagi’s argument that the exclusion of checks and balances principle leads to the destruction of the basic structure of the Constitution. He maintained that the exclusion of the role of the government in appointing the judges is unfair because it disturbs the checks and balances principle.
- He further added that in a democratic setup, the executive cannot be completely excluded. He also supported the inclusion of the Law Minister in the commission, reasoning that the executive with a vast amount of administrative machinery is capable of making enormous and valuable contributions to the selection process.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reforming the process of judicial appointments in India. However, the NJAC faced significant controversy and legal challenges, particularly regarding its constitutionality and potential impact on judicial independence. The proposed composition of the NJAC, which included members from the judiciary, executive, and civil society, raised concerns about the balance of power between these branches of government and the potential for political interference in judicial appointments. Critics argued that the NJAC could undermine the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary by introducing external influences into the appointment process. Ultimately, in 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down the NJAC Act, ruling it unconstitutional. The court reaffirmed the primacy of the Collegium system for judicial appointments, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers. While the NJAC’s objectives of introducing greater transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the judicial appointment process were laudable, the court’s decision highlighted the need to uphold constitutional principles and protect the independence of the judiciary.