Discuss the composition and functions of the National Judicial Appointment Commission. Explain the arguments in favor of and against it.

by

Points to Remember:

  • Composition of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
  • Functions of the NJAC.
  • Arguments for the NJAC (increased transparency, inclusivity, and representation).
  • Arguments against the NJAC (potential for political influence, undermining judicial independence).
  • Supreme Court’s judgment on the NJAC’s constitutionality.

Introduction:

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body in India aimed at replacing the collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The collegium system, in place since 1993, vests the power of judicial appointments in a committee of judges. The NJAC, envisioned through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, sought to introduce a more inclusive and transparent process by including representatives from the executive and the legal profession. However, the Supreme Court of India struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, deeming it unconstitutional. Understanding the composition, functions, and the arguments surrounding the NJAC is crucial to comprehending the ongoing debate on judicial appointments in India.

Body:

1. Composition of the NJAC:

The NJAC, as envisioned by the 99th Amendment Act, would have comprised:

  • The Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Chairperson
  • Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India – Members
  • The Union Minister of Law and Justice – Member
  • Two eminent persons – Members (to be nominated by a committee comprising the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha).

2. Functions of the NJAC:

The primary function of the NJAC would have been to recommend appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. This included:

  • Recommending appointments of judges to the Supreme Court.
  • Recommending appointments of Chief Justices and other judges to High Courts.
  • Transferring judges between High Courts.

3. Arguments in Favor of the NJAC:

  • Increased Transparency and Accountability: The inclusion of executive and eminent persons was argued to bring greater transparency to the appointment process, making it less opaque than the collegium system.
  • Enhanced Representation and Inclusivity: Proponents argued that the NJAC would ensure better representation of various sections of society in the judiciary, potentially addressing concerns about underrepresentation of marginalized communities.
  • Improved Efficiency: Some believed the NJAC would streamline the appointment process, potentially reducing delays.
  • Addressing Concerns of Judicial Overreach: Critics of the collegium system argued that it led to judicial overreach into the executive’s domain. The NJAC, with executive representation, was seen as a way to balance this.

4. Arguments Against the NJAC:

  • Potential for Political Influence: The inclusion of the Law Minister and the possibility of politically motivated appointments by the government raised concerns about compromising judicial independence. The selection of “eminent persons” also posed a risk of political influence.
  • Undermining Judicial Independence: Critics argued that the NJAC would compromise the judiciary’s independence by subjecting it to executive influence. The judiciary’s autonomy, they argued, is crucial for its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government.
  • Lack of Clear Criteria for Selection: The lack of clearly defined criteria for selecting “eminent persons” raised concerns about subjectivity and potential bias in the selection process.
  • Potential for Delays and Gridlock: The involvement of multiple stakeholders could potentially lead to delays and gridlock in the appointment process.

5. Supreme Court Judgment:

In the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, holding that the NJAC infringed upon the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the principle of judicial independence. The Court emphasized the importance of the judiciary’s autonomy from executive interference.

Conclusion:

The debate surrounding the NJAC highlights the fundamental tension between the need for transparency and accountability in judicial appointments and the equally crucial need to safeguard judicial independence. While the NJAC aimed to address concerns about the opacity and potential biases of the collegium system, the Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the paramount importance of preserving the judiciary’s autonomy from executive influence. Moving forward, a balanced approach is needed that enhances transparency and inclusivity without compromising the independence and integrity of the judiciary. This might involve refining the collegium system to address its shortcomings, perhaps through greater transparency and public engagement, while firmly upholding the principle of judicial independence as a cornerstone of India’s democratic fabric. A focus on merit, diversity, and a robust mechanism for addressing complaints against judges should be prioritized to ensure a fair and efficient judicial appointment process.

CGPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for CGPCS Prelims and CGPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by CGPCS Notes are as follows:-