Context: The recovery of half-burnt currency notes from the residence of the Delhi High Court judge has again brought into focus the system of appointment of judges and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Key facts- Collegium; National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act
Mains: Collegium system: Need for Reforms; Judicial Accountability vs independence.
Background
- The appointment of judges in India has been a subject of extensive debate due to concerns about transparency, accountability, and judicial independence.
- Two primary mechanisms for appointing judges to the higher judiciary have been the Collegium System and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
- The current collegium system has been criticised for its opacity and lack of formal procedures, while the NJAC was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds of violating judicial independence.
Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Appointment in India
- Article 124: Supreme Court judges should be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the President may deem necessary. The CJI is to be consulted in all judicial appointments except his or her own.
- Article 217: High Court judges should be appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the state. The Chief Justice of the respective High Court concerned too should be consulted.
Collegium System:
- The Collegium system is a process used for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- It is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India, but evolved through a series of judicial interpretations in what is known as the Judges Cases.
- This system grants primacy to the judiciary in selecting its own members, thereby limiting the role of the executive in the process.
- Composition of the Collegium:
- For Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India; Four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
- For High Courts: Chief Justice of the respective HC; Two senior-most judges of the HC.
- The recommendations made by the Collegium are sent to the government, which can seek clarifications or conduct an inquiry through the Intelligence Bureau (IB). However, if the Collegium reiterates its recommendations, the government is constitutionally bound to accept them.
Evolution of Collegium System:
The procedure was evolved through three Supreme Court (SC) judgments that are popularly known as the “Three Judges Cases”.
1. First Judges Case (1981):
- The SC discussed two major points during the proceedings of this case whether the word “consultation” in the constitutional Article 124 meant “concurrence”.
- The SC denied this by saying that consultation does not mean concurrence under Art 124.
- The President was not bound to appoint a candidate based on the consultation of the SC. Meaning that the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments was valid.
2. Second Judges Case (1993):
- In this case, the SC overruled its earlier verdict and changed the meaning of consultation to concurrence.
- The President of India would be bound for consultations with the Chief justice of India. This resulted in the birth of the Collegium System.
3. Third Judges Case (1998):
- Collegium was expanded and took its current form. Consultation would include a plurality of judges, a collegium of 4 senior-most judges of the SC and CJI.
- Even if two of the judges are against the opinion, the CJI will not recommend it to the government.
Criticism of Collegium System:
- Lack of Transparency: The selection process is conducted behind closed doors with no defined criteria for appointment.
- Absence of Accountability: Since the process is entirely internal to the judiciary, there is no oversight or checks from outside institutions.
- Allegations of Nepotism: There have been accusations of favouritism and appointments based on personal relations rather than merit.
- No Representation from Society: Unlike other democratic institutions, the Collegium does not include members from outside the judiciary, such as legal scholars or civil society representatives.
- Delays in Appointments: Due to procedural inefficiencies and internal disagreements, there are often long delays in filling judicial vacancies.
To address these criticisms, the government brought in the National Judicial Appointment Commission.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
- The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 introduced NJAC.
- Aim: To replace the Collegium system with a more structured and transparent appointment process.
- It was passed with near-unanimous support in Parliament, and was ratified by more than 50% of the state legislatures, reflecting broad political consensus.
Composition of the NJAC:
- Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Chairperson (ex officio).
- Two senior-most Supreme Court judges (ex officio members).
- Union Minister of Law and Justice (ex officio member).
- Two eminent persons from civil society, nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, CJI, and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. One of the two eminent persons had to be from SC/ST/OBC/minority/women categories.
Objectives of NJAC:
- To bring transparency and accountability in judicial appointments.
- To balance judicial independence with executive oversight.
- To ensure diversity in the judiciary by including members from different backgrounds.
- To create an institutional mechanism for appointments, reducing subjectivity in the selection process.
Supreme Court verdict on NJAC (2015):
- In 2015, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC by a 4:1 majority.
- The judgment held that judicial primacy in appointments is a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine and cannot be altered.
- The Court viewed NJAC as an attempt by the executive to interfere in judicial independence. As a result, the Collegium system was restored.
Timeline of Key Events:
- 1981 – First Judges Case: Executive primacy in judicial appointments upheld.
- 1993 – Second Judges Case: Collegium system introduced, giving primacy to the judiciary.
- 1998 – Third Judges Case: Collegium expanded to five judges.
- 2014 – NJAC Act passed by Parliament and ratified by states.
- 2015 – Supreme Court strikes down NJAC and restores the Collegium system.
- Present – Ongoing debates on reforming judicial appointments.
Need for Reforms in Judicial Appointments:
- Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: The current Collegium process lacks clear selection criteria and is opaque. An oversight mechanism is needed to review judicial recommendations.
- Ensuring Diversity: Judicial appointments must reflect India's diverse social composition.
- Speeding up Appointments: Long delays in judicial appointments lead to case backlogs and impact justice delivery.
- Restoring Public Confidence: A credible and fair process will enhance people's trust in the judiciary, which is being eroded by recent events such as remarks by judges on minority communities and corruption.
Way Forward
- Reforming Collegium process: Introduce structured selection mechanism with clearly defined criteria for appointments. Maintain records of deliberations to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Establish Hybrid Oversight Body: Include members from judiciary, executive, legal scholars, and civil society. Maintain judicial primacy while ensuring broader representation.
- Technology Adoption: Use AI-driven legal databases to assess judicial performance. Ensure digitisation of records for greater accountability.
- Evaluation system to review judicial performance post-appointment. Introduce a peer review mechanism for assessing judicial efficiency and integrity.
- Creation of All India Judicial Service to improve the quality of judicial service.
Global Best Practices:
- United Kingdom: Judicial Appointments Commission (an independent organisation) selects judges for courts and tribunals. Three of its 15 members come from the community of judges, while the remaining members are chosen through an open recruitment process.
- United States: President appoints judges to the federal courts with the Senate’s advice and consent.
- South Africa: Judicial Service Commission advises the President to choose judges.
While the Collegium system has served to protect judicial independence, it lacks accountability and transparency. A middle-ground solution is needed to preserve judicial independence while ensuring accountability and diversity in appointments.



