National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014

2. Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (150 words) 10M

Ans. Supreme Court in a judgement in 2016 declared the NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission) as unconstitutional. NJAC was a body comprising three SC judges, Law Minister and two eminent people. This body was given the task of appointing the judges of the higher judiciary.

SC gave many logical reasons to declare NJAC as unconstitutional like

(i) It is against the dictum of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution.

(ii) It is said that an executive is the biggest litigant in the country so, it is not logical to establish a body which has representation from the executive for the appointment of judges. It is against the dictum of Natural justice which is based on the principle that you can't be a judge in your own case.

(iii) It is also said that judiciary does not want to become indebted to the executive in the matters of appointments as judiciary still remembers the scars of emergency when judiciary lost its eminence due to partisan executive.

(iv) SC also said that civil society in India is still in its nascent stage so, the responsibility lies on the judiciary to upheld the interests of the marginalized.

All these reasons support the claims of the judiciary, however SC itself recognised the loopholes in the collegium system of appointment as it has led to opaqueness, corruption allegations, Uncle Judges Syndrome etc. So, it asked the government to devise an MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) for the appointments to streamline the appointments in a transparent way.

As in no other country judges appoint fellow judges, this is also against the dictum of checks and balances in the system. This should be replaced by a system like in UK which has a judicial appointment commission that has people from different walks, of life. This body scrutinises the applications, takes interview and recommend judges for appointment.

So a fair body for judicial appointments is pertinent to support the saying 'Justice should not only be done but It should seem to be done.'