Quote to Remember:
“A democracy cannot function if one organ remains completely opaque in its workings.” – K.K. Venugopal

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Introduction

• The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India has long been debated for its lack of transparency and accountability.
• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment to address these concerns but was later struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
• The recent controversies involving judges have reignited the debate around judicial reforms and the need to revisit NJAC.

What is NJAC?

• NJAC was a constitutional body created to replace the collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• It aimed to introduce transparency, public accountability, and wider participation in the selection of judges.

Composition of NJAC

1. Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Chairperson
2. Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
3. Union Law Minister
4. Two eminent persons (selected by a committee comprising the CJI, Prime Minister, and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha)

Why was NJAC introduced?

1. Lack of transparency in the collegium system.
2. Allegations of nepotism and opacity in judicial appointments.
3. To democratise the selection process by involving the executive and civil society.
4. Ensure greater accountability without compromising judicial independence.

Why did the Supreme Court strike it down?

1. In the Fourth Judges Case (2015), NJAC was struck down by a 4:1 majority.
2. The Court held that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. Inclusion of the executive and non-judicial members was seen as interference in judicial independence.
4. It was feared that the primacy of the judiciary would be undermined in the appointment process.

Arguments in favour of revisiting NJAC

1. The collegium system remains opaque, with no formal criteria for selection.
2. NJAC had overwhelming parliamentary support: passed by 543 MPs and ratified by 16 state legislatures.
3. Public perception of judicial accountability has weakened.
4. A revised NJAC can provide a balanced framework with safeguards to protect judicial independence.
5. Recent incidents of alleged judicial impropriety show the need for external oversight mechanisms.

Concerns associated with NJAC

1. Separation of powers: Inclusion of executive members may politicise appointments.
2. Eminent persons’ clause lacks definition, risking arbitrary appointments.
3. Fear of executive overreach and weakening of the judiciary’s autonomy.

Way forward

1. A revised NJAC model can be considered with judicial primacy intact and greater transparency.
2. Clearly define the role and selection of eminent persons.
3. Establish codified criteria for appointments, enhancing public trust.
4. Maintain a balance between independence and accountability through institutional safeguards.

Conclusion

• The judiciary must remain independent, but not entirely opaque or unaccountable.
• Revisiting NJAC with proper safeguards and transparency mechanisms can help restore public faith in the judicial appointment process.
• As K.K. Venugopal aptly said, “A democracy cannot function if one organ remains completely opaque in its workings.”

⚠️ Copyright Disclaimer
This content is the intellectual property of its creator and is protected under applicable copyright laws. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, redistribution, or sale of this material in any form is strictly prohibited and may lead to legal action.
The material is intended solely for the personal use of enrolled students or subscribers. If you wish to use or refer to this content for educational or commercial purposes, please seek prior written permission.