The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
🔹 Background
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established by the NJAC Act, 2014 following the 99th Constitutional Amendment, aiming to reform the system of appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India — specifically the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Before NJAC, judges were appointed by the Collegium System, an informal method where senior Supreme Court judges recommended appointments and transfers.
The NJAC was intended to bring more transparency and wider participation in judicial appointments by including members outside the judiciary.
🔹 Objectives of the NJAC Act, 2014
To create a statutory body (NJAC) responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
To bring transparency, accountability, and a broader consultative mechanism in judicial appointments.
To reduce the monopoly of the judiciary over appointments and introduce participation of the executive and eminent persons.
🔹 Composition of NJAC (Section 3 of NJAC Act)
The NJAC was to consist of:
Chairperson: The Chief Justice of India (CJI)
Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
Union Minister of Law and Justice
Two “eminent persons” nominated by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
🔹 Functions of NJAC
Recommend names for appointment of:
Judges of the Supreme Court
Chief Justices and other judges of High Courts
Recommend transfer of judges from one High Court to another.
🔹 Process of Appointment Under NJAC
NJAC would recommend appointments and transfers.
The President of India would appoint judges based on NJAC’s recommendations.
If NJAC returned a recommendation, the matter would be reconsidered.
🔹 Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act
The NJAC Act was passed to give effect to the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which inserted Article 124A and amended Articles 124, 217, 222, and 231 of the Constitution.
This amendment created a constitutional basis for NJAC.
🔹 Why was NJAC Controversial?
Critics argued that it undermined the independence of the judiciary.
The presence of the executive (Law Minister) and nominated eminent persons could politicize judicial appointments.
The Collegium system was preferred by some for preserving judicial independence.
🔹 Landmark Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
The NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment were challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, especially the independence of the judiciary.
Issues:
Whether the NJAC Act and 99th Amendment undermined the independence of the judiciary.
Whether the participation of the executive and eminent persons was constitutionally valid.
Whether the NJAC system violated the basic structure doctrine.
Judgment:
On 16 October 2015, a 4:1 majority judgment declared the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional and struck down NJAC.
The Court reaffirmed the “basic structure” of the Constitution, which includes judicial independence.
The Collegium system, though criticized, was upheld as the only constitutionally valid method for appointing judges.
Reasoning:
The majority held that the presence of the Law Minister and the two eminent persons could allow executive interference in the judiciary.
The NJAC compromised judicial independence by diluting the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in appointments.
Hence, it violated the basic structure and was therefore unconstitutional.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Chelameswar dissented, supporting NJAC as a better and more transparent system than the Collegium.
🔹 Impact of the Judgment
The Collegium system continues to be the mode of appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The judgment emphasized that the independence of judiciary is sacrosanct and cannot be compromised even for the sake of transparency or efficiency.
Parliament has not re-enacted any similar law since the NJAC was struck down.
🔹 Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose of NJAC | Reform judicial appointments, increase transparency |
| Composition | CJI, 2 senior SC judges, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons |
| Legislative basis | 99th Constitutional Amendment + NJAC Act 2014 |
| Judicial response | Struck down by Supreme Court (2015) |
| Reason for striking down | Violation of judicial independence (basic structure) |
| Current system | Collegium system upheld |
🔹 Additional Notes
The NJAC judgment is a landmark for the basic structure doctrine and judicial independence in India.
It reflects the tension between the need for transparency and protection of judiciary autonomy.
Since then, there have been calls for reforms within the Collegium itself to improve transparency without legislative changes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments