Answer: 

Introduction:

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, was a significant legal development in India aimed at reforming the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. However, it was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).

Body:

In October 2015, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority verdict, declared the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

“Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability: The Debate Surrounding the NJAC Act”

• Composition of NJAC: Critics argue that the involvement of executive members and eminent persons undermines the independence of the judiciary. However, proponents of the Act argue that the composition ensures transparency and diversity in the appointment process.
• Independence of the Judiciary: While it is important to protect judicial independence, critics argue that the Court did not adequately consider the potential benefits of the NJAC in promoting transparency and accountability in judicial appointments.
• Concentration of Power: Proponents of the Act argue, including non-judicial members in the NJAC prevents concentration of power and maintains balance between the judiciary and executive. While the critics say, the NJAC could lead to concentration of power in the CJI and two senior-most judges, potentially compromising judicial independence.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court held that the NJAC Act violated the basic structure doctrine, which safeguards the essential features of the Constitution. However, critics argue that this doctrine should not be used as a barrier to constitutional amendments aimed at reforming the judiciary, especially when the existing system has been widely criticized for its shortcomings.
• Arbitrary Veto Power: The NJAC Act provided that if any two members of the Commission disagreed with an appointment, the appointment would not go through. The Supreme Court held that this provision gave arbitrary veto power to members of the NJAC, which could be misused to block appointments. Critics of the judgment argue that the provision was designed to ensure a consensus-based approach to appointments, and the Court’s concerns were based on assumptions rather than evidence.
• Collegium System: After striking down the NJAC Act, the Supreme Court reinstated the collegium system for judicial appointments, which has long been criticized for its opacity and lack of accountability. Critics argue that the Court missed an opportunity to propose meaningful reforms to the collegium system while striking down the NJAC Act.

Conclusion:

While the Court’s concerns about the independence of the judiciary are valid, critics argue that the NJAC Act could have been an opportunity to reform the appointment process while preserving the independence of the judiciary.