Imagine a courtroom where the fate of a crucial case hangs in the balance. The judge presiding over it has the power to shape the law and influence society. But have you ever wondered—who appoints these judges? And more importantly, how fair and transparent is this process?
The debate over judicial appointments in India has long been a tug-of-war between two systems—the Collegium System and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). As someone deeply interested in law and governance, I find this debate both fascinating and crucial for India’s democracy.
The Collegium: A Self-Appointing Judiciary
The Collegium has been the backbone of judicial appointments in India since the 1990s. It is a system where judges appoint judges, with minimal interference from the government. It was established through a series of Supreme Court judgments known as the Three Judges Cases:
- First Judges Case (1981) – S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: The Supreme Court ruled that the President of India had the final say in judicial appointments, reducing the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to merely a consultant. This gave the government more control over judicial appointments.
- Second Judges Case (1993) – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India: The Supreme Court overturned the First Judges Case and established the Collegium System, giving primacy to the judiciary in appointing judges. The ruling held that the CJI’s opinion, formed in consultation with senior judges, would be binding on the government.
- Third Judges Case (1998) – Presidential Reference: The Supreme Court clarified that the Collegium should consist of the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It also held that the Collegium’s decision would be final, subject to reconsideration if the government objects.
How Does It Work?
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges form the Collegium.
- They recommend names for appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- The President of India formalizes the appointment after approval.
- The government can request a review, but the Collegium has the final say.
Why Some Support It
✔ Maintains judicial independence from political influence.
✔ Ensures that only those with strong legal expertise make it to the bench.
✔ Prevents executive overreach, protecting democracy.
Why It Faces Criticism
❌ Lacks transparency—decisions are made behind closed doors.
❌ No formal criteria for selection—leading to subjectivity and favouritism.
❌ Public and government have no say in judicial appointments.
NJAC: A Short-Lived Attempt at Reform
In 2014, Parliament attempted to replace the Collegium System with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to bring transparency and accountability to the process.
It proposed a six-member body for judicial appointments:
- Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
- Two senior Supreme Court judges
- Union Law Minister
- Two eminent persons (nominated by a panel of the PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition)
This structure aimed to make the process more participatory and transparent.
Why It Was Struck Down
In 2015, the Supreme Court declared NJAC unconstitutional in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015). The Court ruled that the executive’s involvement in the NJAC posed a threat to judicial independence, violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
Collegium vs. NJAC: A Comparative Overview
| Feature | Collegium System | NJAC |
| Who appoints? | Judges appoint judges | Mixed panel of judges, government, and eminent persons |
| Transparency | Opaque process | More structured and participatory |
| Judicial Independence | Fully maintained | Partial government involvement |
| Public Involvement | None | Indirect via eminent persons |
| Implementation Status | Active | Struck down in 2015 |
The Big Question: What Should Be the Future of Judicial Appointments?
I often wonder—can we find a middle ground? The Collegium ensures independence, while NJAC aimed for accountability. What if we could design a system that preserves judicial autonomy while incorporating transparency and merit-based selection?
Possible Solutions
🔹 Establish an independent oversight body to ensure transparency in Collegium recommendations.
🔹 Introduce formal selection criteria for judges.
🔹 Make the process more open to public and expert scrutiny while avoiding political interference. 🔹 Consider a hybrid model, combining the best aspects of both systems.
What do you think? Should we refine the Collegium, bring back NJAC with modifications, or create an entirely new system?
“For deeper insights into India’s judicial system, check out Supreme But Not Infallible and Supreme Court of India: The Beginnings—both essential reads for anyone interested in law and governance.”
Key Takeaways
✅ The Collegium System has protected judicial independence but lacks transparency.
✅ NJAC was a bold attempt at reform but was struck down for violating constitutional principles. ✅ The debate isn’t just about judges—it’s about protecting democracy and the rule of law.
✅ A balanced, transparent, and merit-driven appointment system is the need of the hour.
✅ The Three Judges Cases played a crucial role in shaping judicial appointments in India.
As citizens, we must stay informed and engaged because a fair judiciary is the foundation of justice. The debate isn’t just legal jargon—it affects every one of us. Afterall, the Judges we appoint today will shape the India of tomorrow. Let’s make sure we get it right.
Let me know if you’d like any modifications! 🚀 Share your thoughts in the comments!
📢 Share this article with your friends and family to keep them informed!
🔍 Explore More: https://thinkingthorough.com
References
Rethinking judicial appointments: Collegium vs. Commission. (n.d.). PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/rethinking-judicial-appointments-collegium-vs-commission?page=2&per-page=1
Admin. (2022, November 29). Collegium system and NJAC for appointment of judges – UPSC Indian Polity Notes. BYJUS. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/collegium-system/
Collegium vs NJAC. (2022, March 25). Unacademy. https://unacademy.com/content/clat/study-material/legal-reasoning/collegium-vs-njac/
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Collegium and NJAC
What is the importance of the Collegium System?
- Judicial Independence – Prevents political interference in judicial appointments.
- Protection of Democracy – Ensures an impartial and unbiased judiciary.
- Merit-Based Selection – Judges select based on experience and legal acumen.
Why was NJAC removed?
The Supreme Court struck down NJAC in 2015 (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India) because:
- It compromised judicial independence by involving the executive.
- It was seen as a violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution.
- Concerns over political influence in judge appointments.
What was the purpose of the NJAC?
- To replace the Collegium System with a transparent and participatory process.
- To include the executive and independent members in judicial appointments.
- To make judicial selections accountable and merit-driven.
What are the arguments in favor of NJAC?
- More Transparency – A structured selection process with public scrutiny.
- Checks and Balances – Balanced representation of judiciary, executive, and independent members.
- Eliminates Nepotism – Reduces favoritism by bringing in external oversight.
- Faster Appointments – Reduces judicial vacancies through an organized process.
How is the Collegium System different from NJAC?
| Feature | Collegium System | NJAC |
| Who Appoints? | Judges appoint judges | Judiciary, government, and eminent persons |
| Transparency | Opaque, no formal criteria | Structured and participatory |
| Judicial Independence | Fully maintained | Partial executive involvement |
| Public Representation | None | Indirect via eminent persons |
| Implementation Status | Active | Struck down in 2015 |