Roadmap for Answer Writing
1. Introduction
- Briefly introduce the NJAC Act, its purpose, and the context of judicial appointments in India.
- Mention the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
2. Background of NJAC Act
- Explain the formation of the NJAC and its intended reforms to the collegium system.
- Discuss the main features of the NJAC Act (composition, powers, etc.).
3. Supreme Court’s Judgment
- Describe the key aspects of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).
- Highlight the majority opinion and dissenting view.
- Mention the implications of the ruling on the NJAC and judicial appointments.
4. Critical Examination
- Judicial Independence vs. Accountability
- Analyze the balance between judicial independence and the need for accountability in judicial appointments.
- Composition Concerns
- Discuss the criticisms regarding the inclusion of executive members and how this affects judicial independence.
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Examine the Court’s application of the basic structure doctrine in this context and its implications for future reforms.
- Transparency and Accountability
- Critically assess whether the NJAC could have improved transparency compared to the collegium system.
- Arbitrary Veto Power
- Discuss the Court’s ruling on the veto power and its implications for consensus-building in judicial appointments.
5. Conclusion
- Summarize the key points discussed.
- Offer insights on the future of judicial appointments in India, considering the reinstatement of the collegium system.
Relevant Facts and Sources
- NJAC Act Enactment
- The NJAC Act was enacted in 2014 as part of the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
- Supreme Court Judgment Date
- The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on October 16, 2015.
- Composition of NJAC
- NJAC was composed of the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons.
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- The Court held that the NJAC infringed upon the basic structure of the Constitution, which protects judicial independence.
- Concerns About Transparency
- Critics argued that the collegium system lacks transparency, with appointments being made without public scrutiny.
- Judicial Independence
- The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence in its ruling, stating it is essential for upholding democracy.
By following this roadmap and incorporating the relevant facts, you can construct a comprehensive and critical answer to the question.
Supreme Court’s Judgment on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 aimed to reform the process of appointing judges to the higher judiciary by including members from the executive and legislative branches alongside the judiciary. The NJAC proposed a commission consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and two senior judges, along with two eminent persons to ensure broader representation in judicial appointments.
Supreme Court’s Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional in 2015. The Court argued that the Act undermined the independence of the judiciary by allowing significant executive influence in the appointment process. It held that the NJAC’s composition threatened the separation of powers and the judicial independence enshrined in the Constitution. The Court emphasized that maintaining the Collegium System, where senior judges recommend appointments, is crucial to preserving judicial autonomy.
Critical Examination: While the NJAC aimed for transparency and inclusivity, the Court’s decision reinforced judicial independence but also left unresolved concerns about the Collegium System’s opacity and the need for reform.
Model Answer
Introduction
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, aimed to reform the appointment process of judges in the higher judiciary of India. However, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).
Supreme Court’s Judgment
In October 2015, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority verdict, struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, emphasizing the need to protect judicial independence.
Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court’s concerns about judicial independence are legitimate, critics argue that the NJAC Act represented a potential opportunity for reform that could have preserved judicial integrity while enhancing accountability. The reinstatement of the collegium system, criticized for its lack of transparency, left significant questions about future judicial appointments unresolved.