National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014: An Easy Explanation

Table of Contents

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014, was a landmark legislative effort aimed at reforming the process of appointing Judges to the higher Judiciary in India. Introduced to address criticisms of the existing collegium system, the NJAC sought to bring transparency, accountability, and a more inclusive process to judicial appointments. Despite its ambitious goals, the NJAC was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, leaving the debate over judicial appointments unresolved. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the NJAC, its key features, the reasons behind its demise, and the ongoing debate surrounding judicial appointments in India.

What is the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?

The NJAC was a proposed Constitutional body introduced through the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, alongside the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014. Its primary objective was to replace the Collegium system with a more transparent and participatory mechanism for appointing Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The NJAC aimed to balance judicial independence with accountability by involving representatives from the Judiciary, Executive, and civil society in the appointment process.

Key Features of NJAC Bill, 2014

The NJAC Bill, 2014, introduced significant changes to the Constitution with the following key features:

Amendments to the Constitution: Articles 124(2) and 217, which govern the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, were amended to establish the NJAC.
Introduction of Article 124A: A new Article that defined the composition and functions of the NJAC.
Merit-Based Appointments: The NJAC emphasized the appointment of Judges based on merit, ability, and transparency.
Veto Power: Any two members of the NJAC could exercise veto power to block a candidate’s appointment, ensuring that no single group dominated the decision-making process.
Inclusive Representation: The composition of the NJAC included members from the Judiciary, Executive, and civil society to ensure a balanced and participatory appointment process.

Composition of the National Judicial Appointments Commission

The NJAC was envisioned as a six-member body composed of:

Chief Justice of India (CJI): The ex-officio Chairperson of the NJAC.
Two Senior Judges of the Supreme Court: Selected by the collegium of Judges.
Union Minister of Law and Justice: Representing the Executive.
Two Eminent Persons: Nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Procedures of the NJAC

The process followed by the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for judicial appointments in India involves a systematic procedure for filling vacancies in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Reference to NJAC for Judicial Vacancies:

When a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court or a High Court, the Central government refers the matter to the NJAC. The NJAC must be notified of any vacant positions within 30 days of the Act coming into effect. In cases where a Judge’s term is set to end, the NJAC is informed six months prior to the vacancy. If a seat becomes vacant due to unforeseen circumstances like death or resignation, the NJAC must be notified within 30 days.

Selection Process for Supreme Court Judges under NJAC:

Chief Justice of India: The NJAC recommends the most senior Supreme Court Judge for the position of Chief Justice of India, provided that the Judge is deemed suitable for the role.
Supreme Court Judges: The NJAC proposes names of candidates based on their qualifications, merit, and other criteria outlined in the regulations. The recommendation can be vetoed if at least two members of the NJAC express their disapproval.

Procedure for Selecting High Court Judges under NJAC:

Chief Justices of High Courts: The NJAC recommends a Judge for the position of Chief Justice of a High Court, taking into account the Judge’s seniority, competence, and suitability as per the prescribed criteria.
High Court Judges: For the appointment of High Court Judges, the NJAC considers nominations put forward by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The Commission forwards these recommendations to the Chief Justice, who must consult with two senior Judges and other relevant Judges and advocates.
Before making any recommendation, the NJAC is required to seek the opinions of the State’s Governor and Chief Minister. If two members of the NJAC disapprove of a nomination, the recommendation will not be made.
This approach ensures a transparent and merit-based selection process for judicial appointments, balancing the input of multiple stakeholders.

The Collegium System vs. NJAC

The Collegium system, established by a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the “Three Judges Cases,“ has been the prevailing method for judicial appointments in India since 1993. Under this system, a Collegium composed of the Chief Justice of India and senior Judges of the Supreme Court recommends judicial appointments. The Collegium system was introduced to protect judicial independence by preventing undue Executive influence.

In contrast, the NJAC sought to introduce a more transparent and accountable system by involving members of the Executive and civil society. However, critics argued that this inclusion could undermine judicial independence, leading to potential political interference in the appointment process.

Challenges and Issues with NJAC Bill 2014

The NJAC faced several challenges that ultimately led to its downfall. Some of the main criticisms were:

Executive Involvement: The presence of the Law Minister in the NJAC raised concerns about potential political interference in judicial appointments.
Veto Power Concerns: The potential misuse of veto power by members of the NJAC, especially the “eminent persons,” was a significant point of contention.
Lack of Clear Guidelines: The absence of clear guidelines for the selection of “eminent persons” and the criteria for judicial appointments was criticized.

Evolution of the Collegium System

First Judges Case (1981)

Context: The Supreme Court, in the “S.P. Gupta v. Union of India” case, addressed the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in judicial appointments.
Ruling: The majority of the Court ruled that the CJI’s role was not firmly established in the Constitution for appointments, indicating that the CJI did not have the final say.
Consultation Definition: The Court clarified that “consulting” as mentioned in Articles 124 and 217 does not imply mandatory agreement or “concurrence.”
Impact: The decision implied that the President of India could make judicial appointments without necessarily obtaining the approval of the CJI or other officials involved in the consultation process.

Second Judges Case (1993)

Reversal of Precedent: The Supreme Court overturned the First Judges Case, significantly altering the process of judicial appointments.
J. S. Verma’s Opinion: The Court, under Justice J. S. Verma, ruled that the opinion of the CJI should carry weight but must be formed in consultation with the two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.
Collective Opinion: This decision ensured that the CJI’s recommendation was not just a personal opinion but was backed by a collective view of senior judges.
Judicial Primacy: The ruling emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial independence by giving primacy to the Judiciary in appointments, rather than the Executive.

Third Judges Case (1998)

Presidential Reference: President K. R. Narayanan, seeking clarification, referred questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction) regarding the consultation process.
Clarification on Consultation: The Court clarified that “consultation” requires a collective discussion among the CJI and the senior-most Judges, and that the CJI’s opinion alone does not suffice.
Collegium System Strengthened: It was established that the CJI should consult with four of his senior colleagues, solidifying the Collegium system as a collective body responsible for judicial appointments.

Why Did the Supreme Court Strike Down the NJAC?

In October 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, 2014, in a landmark judgment known as the Fourth Judges Case. The Court ruled that the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the independence of the Judiciary. The decision was delivered by a five-Judge bench, with a 4:1 majority.

The majority opinion emphasized that judicial independence is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure, and any encroachment by the Executive or Legislature would be unconstitutional. The Court expressed concern that the NJAC, by involving the Executive in the appointment process, could lead to a “culture of reciprocity,” where Judges might feel obligated to the government for their appointments, thereby compromising their impartiality.

Justice Jasti Chelameswar, in his dissenting opinion, argued in favor of the NJAC, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process. He criticized the Collegium system for its opacity and lack of accountability, calling for a more open and participatory approach.

Latest Developments in the NJAC Debate

The debate over the NJAC and the Collegium system remains a contentious issue in Indian legal and political circles. In recent years, there have been renewed calls for reforming the judicial appointment process, with some legal experts and former Judges advocating for a reintroduction of the NJAC with amendments to address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

The current Law Minister has also voiced support for revisiting the NJAC, citing the need for a more transparent and accountable system. However, any new proposal must carefully balance the need for judicial independence with the principles of transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the NJAC Bill, 2014, represented a bold attempt to reform India’s judicial appointment process, it ultimately failed to withstand Constitutional scrutiny. The issues it sought to address, however, remain pressing, and the search for a more effective and transparent system continues. The ongoing debate over judicial appointments underscores the importance of finding a solution that upholds the independence of the Judiciary while ensuring that the process is transparent, fair, and free from bias.