Supreme Court’s Consideration of Plea to Revive NJAC

• The Supreme Court has recently agreed to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the Collegium system for judicial appointments.
  • A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) is a legal petition filed for public interest rather than personal interest.
• The PIL also seeks revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) which was previously struck down.
• The NJAC Act, 2014 was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
  • A Constitutional Amendment is a formal change to the Constitution made by Parliament.
• The purpose of the NJAC was to replace the existing Collegium system for appointments in the higher judiciary.
• The NJAC consisted of a six-member commission responsible for recommending appointments.
  • These six members were the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
    • Eminent persons refer to individuals of high public standing selected for their integrity and contribution to public life.
• The NJAC was struck down in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) by the Supreme Court.
  • The Fourth Judges Case (2015) held that NJAC violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
    • The Basic Structure Doctrine protects fundamental constitutional principles such as Judicial Independence.
• The Supreme Court ruled that NJAC threatened Judicial Independence, making it unconstitutional.

Concerns With the Collegium System

• A key concern with the Collegium is its opaqueness, meaning lack of transparency in decision-making.
• Another concern is its accountability deficit, because no external authority can question or review Collegium decisions.
• The Collegium is not answerable to Parliament, which is the legislative body.
• The Collegium is also not answerable to the Executive, which is the administrative branch of government.
• Critics argue that the system is exclusionary because it has historically under-represented women judges.
• The Collegium has also shown inadequate representation from marginalized communities.
• There is constitutional ambiguity because the Collegium evolved from judicial interpretation rather than formal legislation.
• This evolution occurred through the Three Judges Cases, which judicially created the appointment mechanism.
• Critics say this undermines the principle that Parliament should define institutional frameworks under the Constitution.
• There are persistent vacancies in the higher judiciary due to disagreements between the Collegium and the Executive.
• Such disagreements lead to delays in appointments, affecting judicial efficiency.

Conclusion and Reform Perspective

• The Collegium system helps safeguard judicial independence, which is a cornerstone of democracy.
• However, its limitations indicate the need for structural reforms.
• One reform option is creating a restructured NJAC with stronger safeguards for independence.
• Another option is adopting a Collegium-plus model that incorporates transparency.
  • A Collegium-plus model can also enhance accountability in judicial appointments.
  • This model may further ensure greater diversity among judges.

Existing System of Appointments in the Higher JudiciaryAppointments in the higher judiciary currently follow the Collegium System.The Collegium System is formalized through the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).The MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) is a rulebook outlining how recommendations, approvals, and consultations occur.For Supreme Court appointments, the Collegium consists of the CJI and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges.For High Court appointments, the process begins with the High Court Collegium.The High Court Collegium includes the Chief Justice of that High Court and its two senior-most judges.Recommendations then move to the Supreme Court Collegium for approval.The Supreme Court Collegium for High Court appointments consists of the CJI and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges.The CJI also seeks the views of Supreme Court judges outside the Collegium who are familiar with the concerned High Court.These consultations help ensure that the appointment process reflects local knowledge and judicial insight.