Judicial Appointments in India

The recent controversy surrounding the discovery of large sums of money at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited discussions on judicial appointments in India. This issue is particularly pertinent given the past debates on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The NJAC aimed to reform the judicial appointment process by involving the executive, but the court ruled it unconstitutional, citing the need to preserve judicial independence.

Historical Context of Judicial Appointments

Judicial appointments in India began with the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1950. Initially, the executive had control over these appointments. For 27 years, judges were appointed by the government. This changed in the 1970s when political interference became more pronounced, particularly during the Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Emergence of the Collegium System

The Supreme Court introduced the collegium system in response to executive overreach. This system evolved through three landmark cases known as the First, Second, and Third Judges Cases. The collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), gained primacy in the appointment process, asserting that judicial independence is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act

In 2014, the NJAC Act was introduced to replace the collegium system. This act aimed to create a more transparent and accountable process for judicial appointments. The NJAC was to consist of the CJI, two senior-most judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons from civil society. The act was widely supported across political lines and was ratified by several state legislatures.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on NJAC

The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, ruling that it violated the Constitution’s basic structure. The court raised concerns about the veto power given to non-judicial members, which could undermine judicial independence. The ruling reinforced the judiciary’s primacy in appointing judges, asserting that any law infringing on this independence would be unconstitutional.

Criticism and Future Considerations

The collegium system has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability. Despite this, the Supreme Court’s ruling has made it clear that any attempt to alter the appointment process must safeguard judicial independence. Discussions continue on how to reform the system while maintaining the judiciary’s primacy.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the impact of the collegium system on judicial independence in India.
2. What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act for the future of judicial appointments?
3. Explain the significance of the basic structure doctrine in the context of constitutional amendments.
4. Comment on the role of political influence in judicial appointments throughout Indian history. Provide suitable examples.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the impact of the collegium system on judicial independence in India.

1. The collegium system was established to protect judicial independence from executive interference.
2. It allows the judiciary to have the primary say in appointing judges, reinforcing its autonomy.
3. Critics argue that the system is opaque and lacks accountability, potentially undermining its effectiveness.
4. Judicial appointments are made by a group of senior judges, which can lead to insularity and favoritism.
5. Despite criticisms, the collegium system is viewed as essential for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

2. What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act for the future of judicial appointments?

1. The ruling reinforced the judiciary’s primacy in appointing judges, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.
2. It invalidated the NJAC’s veto power for non-judicial members, maintaining a barrier against executive influence.
3. The decision has prompted discussions on reforming the collegium system to address transparency issues.
4. Future attempts to modify judicial appointments must align with the basic structure doctrine to avoid unconstitutionality.
5. The ruling sets a precedent for safeguarding judicial independence in future legislative measures.

3. Explain the significance of the basic structure doctrine in the context of constitutional amendments.

1. The basic structure doctrine ensures that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
2. It protects the core values of democracy, rule of law, and judicial independence from legislative overreach.
3. This doctrine was established in landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
4. It serves as a check on Parliament’s power, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not undermine essential rights.
5. The doctrine has become a mainstay of constitutional law in India, influencing judicial interpretations and legislative actions.

4. Comment on the role of political influence in judicial appointments throughout Indian history. Provide suitable examples.

1. Political influence has historically shaped judicial appointments, notably during the Emergency (1975-77) under Indira Gandhi.
2. Superseding senior judges for political reasons, as seen with Justice A N Ray’s appointment, exemplifies this interference.
3. The introduction of the collegium system was a direct response to executive overreach in judicial appointments.
4. Recent controversies, such as the NJAC Act, reflect ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive.
5. Political considerations continue to affect public perception and trust in the judicial appointment process.