Process of Judicial appointments in India keep  alive the debate between independence and accountability. One end of this spectrum is anchored by the principle of judicial independence. It is recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The opposite end of the spectrum reflects democratic expectations of accountability and transparency in public appointments.

1990’s Collegium system remained contested. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), to replace the collegium system, was struck down in 2015.

Trajectory of Judicial Appointments

1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – First Judges Case

The Court held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments. The Chief Justice of India’s opinion was not binding. This reinforced the government’s decisive role.

2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – Second Judges Case

A nine-judge bench overruled S.P. Gupta. It held that judicial independence required judicial primacy in appointments. The Court created the Collegium system, where the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges would recommend appointments.

3. Re Presidential Reference (1998) – Third Judges Case

The Court expanded the Collegium to five judges (CJI + 4 senior-most) for Supreme Court appointments, and three for High Court. It emphasised consultation, institutional decision-making, and checks against arbitrariness.

4. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2015) – Fourth Judges Case

The Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act by 4:1 majority. It held that the NJAC violated the basic structure doctrine by diluting judicial independence. Simultaneously, it acknowledged flaws in the Collegium and ordered reforms through a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).

NJAC

Features of NJAC (2014–15)

• Six members: CJI, two senior-most SC judges, Union Law Minister, and two “eminent persons.”
• Eminent persons were to be chosen by a committee of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and CJI.
• Any two members could veto an appointment.

Pros of the Collegium System

1. It insulates appointments from executive dominance.
2.  Senior judges best placed to assess candidates’ professional competence, integrity, and suitability.
3.  To preserve the basic structure of the Constitution.

---

Cons of the Collegium System

1.  The process lacked transparency. Reasons for selections, rejections, or transfers rarely disclosed.
2. No statutory body or external oversight exists to check biases, favouritism, or lack of diversity.
3. Frequent delays due to tussles between the judiciary and executive affect filling of vacancies.
4. The system criticised for under-representation of women, minorities.

NJAC Debate: Pros and Cons

Potential Advantages of NJAC

•  Involving non-judicial members introduces checks on judicial monopoly.
• A statutory process could have codified criteria and procedures.
•  Diverse voices, including eminent persons, could enrich the process.

Cons with NJAC

• The veto of two members could paralyse the process and allow executive control.
• Eminent persons’ appointment process risked party influence.
• Judicial independence will be hit .

---

Way Forward: Towards a Balanced Framework

Neither complete judicial monopoly nor unchecked political participation ensures a sound system. A middle path must safeguard judicial independence while improving accountability.

Suggested Reforms

1. Incorporate criteria for merit, integrity, diversity, and transparency.
2. Create an institutional mechanism to collect data, track vacancies, and document reasons.
3. Mandate timelines for recommendations, clearances, and appointments.
4. Publish succinct reasons for selection and rejection while protecting individual dignity.
5. Diversity targets: Encourage appointments across gender, caste, region, and professional backgrounds.

Conclusion

The Collegium system, though judicially entrenched, suffers from opacity and delays. The NJAC, while promising accountability, failed the basic structure test. The way forward lies in evolving a hybrid model. It will retain judicial primacy while institutionalising transparency, efficiency, and inclusiveness.