The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed constitutional body for appointing judges to the:
It was created through the:
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
and the:
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC framework in:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India — 2015
The Court declared the:
unconstitutional.
As a result, the:
Collegium System
was restored.
Before the NJAC, appointments to the higher Judiciary were made through the:
Collegium System
The system gives the Judiciary a dominant role in recommending appointments to the:
Concerns were raised regarding the Collegium's:
The NJAC was proposed as an alternative mechanism.
The NJAC was intended to create a more:
system for judicial appointments.
It sought to involve both:
Judiciary
and:
Executive
in the appointment process.
The NJAC was introduced through the:
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
The amendment modified provisions relating to the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
It also inserted:
Article 124A
Article 124B
and:
Article 124C
into the Constitution.
Article 124A provided for the:
National Judicial Appointments Commission
It specified the composition of the Commission.
The NJAC was to consist of:
Therefore, the Commission would have:
6 members
The two eminent persons were to be selected by a committee consisting of:
If there was no recognised Leader of Opposition, the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha was to be involved according to the statutory framework.
The proposed structure attempted to create a balance between:
Thus, NJAC was designed as a:
Multi-member appointment body
rather than a purely judicial mechanism.
Article 124B specified the functions of the Commission.
The NJAC was responsible for recommending persons for appointment as:
It also dealt with:
Transfer of Chief Justices and other High Court judges
The NJAC was to recommend a person for appointment as:
Chief Justice of India
The recommendation would be based on the person's:
Ability, merit and other criteria prescribed by law
For appointment of Supreme Court judges, the NJAC was to recommend candidates to the:
President
The Commission would assess:
The NJAC was also intended to recommend persons for appointment as:
Thus, NJAC would have played a central role in appointments to the higher Judiciary.
The NJAC was also given a role in recommending:
Transfer of Chief Justices and other judges of High Courts
This was another major change from the existing appointment framework.
Article 124C empowered Parliament to make a law regulating:
of the NJAC.
Parliament enacted the:
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
to provide the statutory framework.
The:
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
provided the statutory framework for:
of the NJAC.
The Act was intended to operate alongside the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
A major feature of the proposed NJAC was that a recommendation could not be made if:
Any two members
voted against it.
Therefore:
6-Member NJAC
↓
Recommendation
↓
If any 2 members oppose
↓
Recommendation fails
This gave individual members significant blocking power.
16. Why Was NJAC Controversial?
The central constitutional debate concerned:
Judicial Independence
Critics argued that giving the Executive and non-judicial members a significant role in appointments could allow:
Political influence over judicial appointments
Supporters argued that the Collegium System had insufficient:
Transparency
Accountability
Public participation
17. NJAC vs Collegium System
Collegium System
Dominant role:
Judiciary
NJAC
Role shared among:
Judiciary
Executive
Eminent persons
Therefore:
Collegium
→ Judicial Primacy
NJAC
→ Participatory / Multi-member Model
18. Why Was NJAC Challenged?
The constitutional validity of the NJAC was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The main concern was whether the new appointment mechanism compromised:
Independence of Judiciary
as part of the:
Basic Structure of the Constitution
19. Supreme Court Judgment — 2015
The landmark judgment was:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
The judgment was delivered in:
2015
by a:
Five-judge Constitution Bench
The Court struck down the:
99th Constitutional Amendment
NJAC Act, 2014
20. Main Reason for Striking Down NJAC
The Supreme Court held that the NJAC framework violated the:
Independence of Judiciary
which is part of the:
Basic Structure
of the Constitution.
The Court considered judicial independence in appointments to be constitutionally significant.
21. Collegium System Restored
After striking down the NJAC framework, the Supreme Court restored the:
Collegium System
for appointments to the higher Judiciary.
Therefore:
NJAC
↓
Struck Down — 2015
↓
Collegium System Restored
22. Majority Decision
The NJAC judgment was delivered by a:
5-judge Constitution Bench
The Court struck down the NJAC by a:
4:1 majority
The majority held that the NJAC violated the constitutional requirement of:
Judicial Independence
23. Justice Chelameswar's Dissent
Justice:
Jasti Chelameswar
was the dissenting judge.
He supported the NJAC framework and disagreed with the majority's decision to strike it down.
His dissent is important because it highlighted concerns regarding the:
Opacity and accountability of the Collegium System
24. Basic Structure Doctrine and NJAC
The NJAC case is an important application of the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
The reasoning was broadly:
Judicial Appointments
↓
Judicial Independence
↓
Basic Structure
↓
Cannot be Fundamentally Damaged
25. Judicial Independence
The Supreme Court considered the independence of the Judiciary to include an important element of:
Independence in judicial appointments
The concern was that excessive influence by the Executive could affect the independence of judges.
26. Executive Role Under NJAC
The NJAC gave the:
Union Minister of Law and Justice
a seat on the Commission.
In addition, two eminent persons were included.
The Supreme Court's concern was that these non-judicial members could influence judicial appointments in a manner inconsistent with judicial independence.
27. Transparency vs Independence
The NJAC debate reflects a broader constitutional tension:
Transparency and Accountability
Require:
Greater openness
Wider participation
Clearer criteria
Institutional accountability
Judicial Independence
Requires protection from:
Political pressure
Executive influence
Majoritarian interests
The challenge is to achieve:
Transparency without compromising independence
28. Collegium System — Post-NJAC
After the NJAC judgment, the Collegium System continued.
For Supreme Court appointments, the Collegium consists of:
Chief Justice of India
Four senior-most Supreme Court judges
For High Court appointments, the process begins with the:
High Court Collegium
and proceeds through the higher judicial appointment framework.
29. Criticism of the Collegium System
Despite its restoration, the Collegium System continues to face criticism regarding:
Opacity
Lack of formal criteria
Limited public accountability
Delays
Perceived lack of diversity
Limited external scrutiny
The NJAC debate therefore remains relevant.
30. Arguments in Favour of NJAC
Supporters of NJAC argued that it could:
1. Improve Transparency
Introduce a broader and more structured appointment mechanism.
2. Increase Accountability
Reduce concentration of appointment power within the Judiciary.
3. Increase Diversity
Allow wider representation in the appointment process.
4. Reduce Opacity
Create a formal statutory framework.
5. Balance Institutions
Give the Executive and Judiciary defined roles.
31. Arguments Against NJAC
Critics argued that NJAC could:
1. Threaten Judicial Independence
Executive participation could influence judicial appointments.
2. Enable Political Influence
The Law Minister was a member of the Commission.
3. Weaken Judicial Primacy
Judicial representatives would no longer have decisive control.
4. Affect Constitutional Balance
The appointment process could become vulnerable to political considerations.
32. Collegium vs NJAC
Feature Collegium System NJAC
Nature Judge-led system Constitutional Commission
Judicial role Dominant Shared
Executive role Limited/formal Direct participation
Law Minister Not part of Collegium Member of NJAC
Eminent persons No Two
Constitutional basis Judicial decisions 99th Amendment
Status today Continues Struck down
Key case Second & Third Judges Cases NJAC Case, 2015
33. Second Judges Case — 1993
In:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India — 1993
the Supreme Court established the principle of:
Judicial Primacy
in appointments to the higher Judiciary.
This judgment is known as the:
Second Judges Case
34. Third Judges Case — 1998
In the:
Third Judges Case — 1998
the Supreme Court clarified the functioning of the Collegium System.
The President sought the Court's advisory opinion regarding the meaning and scope of the Collegium.
The Court expanded the Collegium for Supreme Court appointments to:
CJI + Four Senior-most Supreme Court Judges
35. First Judges Case — 1981
In:
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India — 1981
the Supreme Court had taken a position favouring greater executive influence in judicial appointments.
This position was later changed by the:
Second Judges Case — 1993
Thus:
First Judges Case — 1981
→ Executive Primacy
Second Judges Case — 1993
→ Judicial Primacy
Third Judges Case — 1998
→ Collegium Clarified
36. NJAC and the Judges Cases
The evolution can be understood as:
1981
↓
First Judges Case
↓
Executive Primacy
1993
↓
Second Judges Case
↓
Judicial Primacy
1998
↓
Third Judges Case
↓
Collegium Expanded / Clarified
2014
↓
99th Amendment + NJAC
2015
↓
NJAC Judgment
↓
NJAC Struck Down
↓
Collegium Restored
37. Why NJAC Is Important for UPSC
NJAC connects several major Polity themes:
Judicial Independence
Judicial Appointments
Basic Structure Doctrine
Separation of Powers
Collegium System
Constitutional Amendments
Judicial Accountability
Therefore, it is important for both:
Prelims and Mains
38. UPSC Prelims Facts
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
→ Created constitutional framework for NJAC
Article 124A
→ Composition of NJAC
Article 124B
→ Functions of NJAC
Article 124C
→ Parliament's power to regulate procedure by law
NJAC members
→ 6
CJI
→ Chairperson
Two senior Supreme Court judges
→ Members
Union Law Minister
→ Member
Two eminent persons
→ Members
Any two members opposing
→ Recommendation could not proceed
NJAC Act
→ 2014
NJAC struck down
→ 2015
Case
→ Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
Majority
→ 4:1
Result
→ Collegium System restored
39. UPSC Prelims Traps
Trap 1
"NJAC is currently the system for appointing Supreme Court and High Court judges."
False
NJAC was struck down in 2015.
Trap 2
"NJAC was created only through an ordinary Act of Parliament."
False
It required:
99th Constitutional Amendment
NJAC Act, 2014
Trap 3
"The Chief Justice of India was not a member of NJAC."
False
The CJI was the:
Chairperson
Trap 4
"The Union Law Minister was not part of NJAC."
False
The Union Minister of Law and Justice was a member.
Trap 5
"NJAC had four members."
False
It had:
Six members
Trap 6
"All members of NJAC had to be judges."
False
The Commission included:
Three judicial members
Law Minister
Two eminent persons
Trap 7
"NJAC was struck down because constitutional amendments can never be reviewed."
False
The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional amendment under the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Trap 8
"NJAC was struck down because the Court rejected any Executive role in judicial appointments."
Oversimplified
The central constitutional concern was that the NJAC structure insufficiently protected:
Judicial Independence
Trap 9
"The NJAC judgment ended the Collegium System."
False
The Collegium System was restored after the NJAC was struck down.
Trap 10
"Justice Chelameswar was part of the majority striking down NJAC."
False
Justice Jasti Chelameswar gave the:
Dissenting opinion
40. Quick Revision
99th Amendment — 2014
↓
NJAC
↓
Articles 124A, 124B, 124C
NJAC — 6 Members
↓
CJI
+ 2 Senior SC Judges
+ Law Minister
+ 2 Eminent Persons
NJAC
↓
Appointments
+ Transfers
↓
SC + HC Judges
NJAC
↓
Challenged
↓
2015
↓
4:1 Majority
↓
Struck Down
↓
Collegium Restored
41. One-Page Revision
NATIONAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
COMMISSION — NJAC
│
├── Created By
│ ├── 99th Constitutional Amendment — 2014
│ └── NJAC Act — 2014
│
├── Constitutional Provisions
│ ├── Article 124A
│ ├── Article 124B
│ └── Article 124C
│
├── Composition
│ ├── CJI — Chairperson
│ ├── 2 Senior SC Judges
│ ├── Law Minister
│ └── 2 Eminent Persons
│
├── Functions
│ ├── SC Appointments
│ ├── HC Appointments
│ └── HC Judge Transfers
│
├── Challenge
│ └── Judicial Independence
│
├── Supreme Court Judgment
│ └── NJAC Case — 2015
│ ├── 4:1
│ └── NJAC Struck Down
│
└── Result
└── Collegium System Restored
42. Mains Answer Framework
Introduction
The National Judicial Appointments Commission was introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 to replace the Collegium System with a broader institutional mechanism for appointments to the higher Judiciary.
Composition
CJI
Two senior Supreme Court judges
Union Law Minister
Two eminent persons
Objectives
Greater transparency
Accountability
Broader participation
Institutional balance
Reform of the Collegium System
Constitutional Challenge
The central issue was whether the NJAC compromised:
Judicial Independence
which forms part of the:
Basic Structure
Supreme Court Judgment
In the NJAC Case, 2015:
99th Amendment struck down
NJAC Act struck down
Decision by 4:1 majority
Collegium System restored
Arguments Against
Possible Executive influence
Threat to judicial independence
Weakening of judicial primacy
Continuing Debate
The judgment restored the Collegium but did not eliminate concerns regarding:
Transparency
Accountability
Diversity
Appointment delays
Way Forward
A better appointment mechanism should ensure:
Judicial independence + transparency + accountability + merit + diversity
without allowing political interference.
Conclusion
The NJAC episode demonstrates the constitutional tension between judicial independence and accountability in judicial appointments. The challenge for India is to reform the appointment process while preserving the Judiciary's independence as a core element of the Basic Structure.