Answer:

The Collegium System and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) represent two divergent approaches to judicial appointments in India. While the Collegium System is criticised for its opacity and lack of accountability, the NJAC aimed to introduce a more inclusive process. However, its repeal by the Supreme Court has sparked debates on the need for judicial reforms to ensure independence and transparency.

Positives of the current collegium system:

• Judicial Independence: The collegium system ensures judicial independence by minimising executive interference in judicial appointments, protecting the judiciary from political pressures.
  For example: The Supreme Court of India has maintained its independence from political influence in key decisions, such as the striking down of NJAC Act in 2015.
• Accountability in Appointments: The collegium system provides a level of accountability through a consultative process among senior judges, ensuring decisions are based on merit and integrity.
  For instance: Judicial appointments under the collegium system often involve thorough deliberations and assessments.
• Merit-Based Selection: By emphasising qualifications and experience, the collegium system promotes a merit-based approach in appointing judges, ensuring a competent and skilled judiciary.
  For example: The appointment of Justice R.F. Nariman to the Supreme Court was based on his exceptional legal acumen and vast experience as a senior advocate.
• Checks and Balances: The collegium system acts as a check on executive overreach, maintaining the balance of power between the judiciary and the government.
  For example: The collegium’s ability to veto judicial appointments has been crucial in maintaining the separation of powers, as seen in the 2014 rejection of Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s elevation due to allegations of corruption.
• Peer Review and Experience: Judges within the collegium bring their extensive experience and understanding of the legal system to assess potential candidates, leading to well-informed decisions.
  For example: The collegium’s decision to elevate judges like Justice S. Ravindra Bhat was influenced by peer reviews emphasising his judicious temperament and experience in complex legal matters.

The Need for Reforming the Current Collegium System:

• Lack of Transparency: The Collegium System is often criticised for its opaque decision-making process, where criteria for selecting judges are not disclosed, leading to questions about fairness and objectivity.
• Perceived Nepotism and Favouritism: Allegations of nepotism and favouritism have plagued the Collegium System, where personal preferences of senior judges might overshadow merit-based selections, affecting the judiciary’s credibility.
  For instance: Instances where relatives of sitting judges are appointed have raised concerns about fairness and impartiality in the selection process.
• Delay in Appointments: The Collegium System often results in delays in filling judicial vacancies, exacerbating the already high pendency of cases and affecting the justice delivery system.
  For example: As of 2024, about 30% of High Court positions remain vacant, contributing to the backlog of over 60 lakh cases, as per the Department of Justice report.
• Lack of Broad-Based Consultation: The system is criticised for excluding other stakeholders like the executive and civil society, which could provide diverse perspectives and ensure a more holistic approach to appointments.
  For instance: Unlike systems in countries like the UK, where judicial appointments involve multiple stakeholders, India’s Collegium operates solely within the judiciary.
• No Standardised Criteria for Selection: The absence of a standardised framework for assessing candidates’ suitability leads to inconsistent and subjective decisions, undermining the quality of judicial appointments.
  For example: There is no formalised criteria such as experience, academic background, or performance metrics guiding the Collegium’s decisions

Merits of Reintroducing a Modified NJAC:

• Increased Transparency and Accountability: A reformed NJAC could introduce a transparent process by involving representatives from the judiciary, executive, and civil society, ensuring accountability in judicial appointments.
  For example: The NJAC’s inclusion of non-judicial members could provide a check against opaque decision-making, ensuring more transparency.
• Balanced Representation in Appointments: By involving multiple stakeholders, a modified NJAC could ensure that appointments reflect a broader range of perspectives, enhancing diversity within the judiciary.
  For example: A revised NJAC model could include quotas for women and marginalised groups, promoting a more inclusive judiciary.
• Checks and Balances: The NJAC could provide a system of checks and balances by distributing the power of judicial appointments, reducing the risk of concentration of power within a small group.
  For example: The presence of both judicial and non-judicial members in NJAC can prevent unilateral decision-making, fostering balanced appointments.
• Enhanced Efficiency in Appointments: A revised NJAC could streamline the appointment process by setting clear timelines and criteria, reducing delays and improving the efficiency of judicial appointments.
• Facilitating Broader Consultation: A modified NJAC could encourage consultations across different branches of government and society, fostering greater trust and cooperation in the appointment process.
  For instance: A consultative approach involving the Bar Association, civil society, and executive could enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of judicial appointments.

Demerits of Reintroducing a Modified NJAC:

• Potential Threat to Judicial Independence: Involving the executive in judicial appointments could compromise judicial independence, as it may lead to political influence over the judiciary.
• Possibility of Increased Bureaucracy: Introducing additional layers in the appointment process could lead to bureaucratic delays, complicating and prolonging the selection of judges.
  For instance: Countries with multi-layered appointment processes often face delays due to extensive vetting and approvals, which could also happen with a revised NJAC.
• Risk of Politicization: Including members of the political executive in the NJAC could politicise judicial appointments, leading to decisions driven by political considerations rather than merit.
• Ambiguity in Selection Criteria: Without clear guidelines, the NJAC could face challenges in maintaining consistent standards for appointments, potentially affecting the quality of judges.
  For instance: The lack of a defined selection framework in the original NJAC proposal was criticised for potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.
• Challenges in Reaching Consensus: Given the diverse representation in a modified NJAC, reaching a consensus on appointments might be challenging, leading to potential deadlocks.
  For example: Countries like South Africa have experienced delays and disputes in judicial appointments due to differing opinions within their Judicial Service Commission.

To ensure a robust judicial appointment process, India must reform the Collegium System and consider a balanced approach, incorporating elements of transparency and accountability from global models. A modified NJAC, with safeguards for judicial independence and broader stakeholder engagement, could provide a more effective framework. Continuous dialogue and adaptation are essential for promoting public confidence and maintaining judicial integrity.

DOWNLOAD PDF