CJI to consider plea to revive NJAC, end Collegium system
Context
-
A plea was mentioned before CJI Surya Kant seeking revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and end of the Collegium system.
-
The petitioner (adv. Mathews J. Nedumpara) argues that the 2015 NJAC judgment must be declared void ab initio.
-
CJI orally stated the Court would consider the plea.
Background
Collegium System
-
Evolved through Three Judges Cases (1981–1998).
-
Judges select judges for appointments/transfers to High Courts and Supreme Court.
-
Criticised for opacity, nepotism, lack of accountability.
NJAC
-
Created via the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014 + NJAC Act, 2014.
-
Aimed to give the Executive an equal role in appointments.
-
Composition:
-
CJI (Chairperson)
-
2 senior-most SC judges
-
Union Law Minister
-
2 eminent persons
-
-
Struck down by SC (4:1) in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (2015) as violating judicial independence.
Key Arguments in the New Plea
1. NJAC Judgment a “Great Wrong”
-
Petitioner claims SC substituted “will of the people” with “opinion of four judges”.
-
Parliament, exercising constituent power, passed the 99th Amendment → reflects democratic mandate.
2. Collegium = “Nepotism & Favouritism”
-
Plea describes Collegium as lacking transparency:
-
“A riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” (Winston Churchill).
-
-
Internal criticism exists within judiciary about opaque functioning.
3. Parliament Reduced to “Inferior Tribunal”
-
Striking down a constitutional amendment passed with near-unanimity allegedly undermines legislative supremacy.
4. Remedy Sought
-
Declare the 2015 judgment void ab initio.
-
Restore NJAC as the valid mechanism for judicial appointments.
Arguments For the Collegium System
-
Judicial independence free from Executive influence.
-
Basic Structure: NJAC struck down for violating independence of judiciary.
-
Executive presence may lead to politicisation of appointments.
Arguments Against the Collegium System
-
No transparency in criteria, minutes, deliberations.
-
Alleged nepotism (“uncle judges”).
-
No formal accountability or evaluation mechanism.
-
Delays in appointments → judicial vacancies → case pendency.
Arguments For NJAC
-
Democratic validation—passed by Parliament & majority states.
-
Balances power by including Executive + Eminent persons.
-
Enhances diversity, merit-based selection.
-
Increases transparency & public trust.
Arguments Against NJAC
-
Executive dominance risks eroding judicial independence.
-
“Eminent persons” selection could be politically influenced.
-
Veto powers may block deserving candidates.
Way Forward
-
Greater transparency in Collegium (criteria, minutes, rationale).
-
Judicial Appointments Commission 2.0
-
Without compromising independence.
-
Include independent, non-political members.
-
-
Performance review & diversity metrics for appointments.
-
Strengthen Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
