Judicial Appointments in India

March 27, 2025

The recent controversy surrounding the discovery of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited discussions on judicial appointments in India. This debate has been ongoing since the establishment of the judiciary, with changes over the decades. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was a very important moment in this discourse, aiming to reform the appointment process before being struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Historical Context

Since India’s independence in 1947, judicial appointments have evolved . Initially, the executive branch appointed judges to the higher judiciary. This continued until the 1970s when political interference prompted the Supreme Court to establish the collegium system. This system aimed to protect judicial independence by giving the judiciary the primary role in appointing judges.

The Collegium System

The collegium system emerged from three landmark Supreme Court judgments known as the First, Second, and Third Judges Cases. These rulings clarified that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges would recommend judicial appointments. This system, although not mentioned in the Constitution, was deemed essential to maintain judicial independence and uphold the basic structure of the Constitution.

Introduction of the NJAC

In 2014, the government introduced the NJAC to reform the judicial appointment process. This act aimed to create an independent commission to appoint judges, replacing the collegium system. The NJAC was composed of the CJI, two senior-most judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons from civil society. This composition aimed to balance judicial independence with executive input.

Supreme Court’s Verdict on NJAC

The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, declaring it unconstitutional. The court argued that the veto power granted to non-judicial members could undermine judicial independence. The ruling emphasised that the judiciary must have the primary role in appointing judges to preserve the rule of law and democracy.

Criticism of the Collegium System

Despite its intentions, the collegium system has faced criticism for being opaque and unaccountable. Critics argue that it lacks transparency in its decisions and does not adequately represent diverse societal interests. This ongoing critique marks the need for a more balanced approach to judicial appointments.

Future of Judicial Appointments

The debate surrounding judicial appointments continues. There are calls for reform that could include negotiating the veto power in the NJAC or enhancing the collegium system’s transparency. The challenge remains to find a system that preserves judicial independence while ensuring accountability and representation.

« Previous Post Next Post »