National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case

Bench

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:

• Justice J.S. Khehar
• Justice J. Chelameswar
• Justice Madan B. Lokur
• Justice Kurian Joseph
• Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Facts

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium system for appointing Supreme Court and High Court judges.
• The NJAC comprised:
  1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) as Chairperson.
  2. Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  3. The Union Minister of Law and Justice.
  4. Two eminent persons, nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition.
• The NJAC Act, 2014, was passed to regulate the functions of the NJAC.
• The NJAC was challenged by Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and others, arguing that it violated judicial independence, a basic structure principle of the Constitution.

Issues

• Whether the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014, violated the basic structure doctrine by affecting judicial independence.
• Whether the collegium system should be retained or replaced with NJAC.
• Whether the inclusion of executive members (Law Minister and two eminent persons) in the NJAC compromised judicial independence.
• Whether judicial primacy in appointments should be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held:

• NJAC is unconstitutional: The 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act were struck down as they violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining judicial independence.
• Judicial Primacy in Appointments: The Court ruled that appointments to the judiciary must remain independent of executive control.
• Collegium System Restored: Since the NJAC was struck down, the collegium system was reinstated.
• Role of the Executive is Limited: The Court held that allowing the executive a say in judicial appointments created a conflict of interest, as the government is a frequent litigant before the judiciary.

Observations

• The independence of the judiciary is a basic structure principle and cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
• The Law Minister’s presence in the NJAC would allow the executive to influence judicial appointments, violating the principle of separation of powers.
• While the collegium system has flaws, the solution lies in reforming it, not in increasing executive control.
• Judicial accountability is necessary, but judicial independence cannot be compromised to achieve it.

Decision

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act were declared unconstitutional.
• The collegium system was restored as the only valid mechanism for appointing judges.
• The Court recommended reforms to improve transparency in the collegium system.

Important Terms

1. Article 124 (Appointment of Supreme Court Judges) – Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and senior judges.
2. Article 217 (Appointment of High Court Judges) – High Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
3. Article 222 (Transfer of High Court Judges) – The President can transfer a High Court judge to another High Court after consulting the CJI and the concerned Chief Justices.
4. Collegium System – A system where judges recommend appointments and transfers, reducing executive interference.
5. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) – A body introduced by the 99th Constitutional Amendment to replace the collegium system, but later struck down as unconstitutional.
6. Basic Structure Doctrine – A constitutional principle stating that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution (such as judicial independence) cannot be altered by amendments.
7. Judicial Independence – The principle that the judiciary should function free from executive or legislative influence.
8. Judicial Primacy – The concept that the judiciary must have the final say in its own appointments, rather than the executive or legislature.
9. Judicial Review – The power of courts to review and strike down laws or government actions that violate the Constitution.