The:
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
was a proposed constitutional body intended to replace the:
Collegium System
for appointments and transfers of judges of the:
It sought to introduce:
Broader institutional participation
in judicial appointments.
The NJAC framework was created through:
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014.
Parliament also enacted:
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
The NJAC was proposed to address criticisms of the collegium system, including:
The collegium had developed through:
Second Judges Case, 1993
and:
Third Judges Case, 1998.
Judicial primacy in judicial appointments.
The 99th Amendment inserted:
Article 124A.
Article 124B.
Article 124C.
It also made consequential changes to:
Articles 124, 217 and 222.
Provided for:
Composition of the NJAC.
Provided for:
Functions of the NJAC.
Empowered Parliament to:
Make law regulating the procedure and functioning of the NJAC.
The NJAC consisted of:
The:
Chief Justice of India
was the:
Chairperson of the NJAC.
The two eminent persons were to be selected by a committee consisting of:
Where there was no recognised Leader of Opposition, the framework referred to the:
Leader of the single largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha.
At least one of the two eminent persons was to be:
From among SC/ST/OBC communities, women or minorities.
The NJAC was intended to recommend:
Appointment of judges of the Supreme Court.
Appointment of judges of the High Courts.
It also dealt with:
Transfer of High Court judges.
The CJI remained part of the institution.
Therefore:
NJAC did not eliminate judicial participation.
The major change was:
Addition of non-judicial members.
Judicially evolved.
Judicial primacy.
Constitutionally created.
Mixed institutional participation.
Judges play the decisive role.
Judges + Executive + eminent persons participated.
A recommendation could be blocked if:
Any two members of the NJAC did not agree to it.
This was particularly important to the constitutional challenge.
The petitioners argued that:
Non-judicial members could potentially prevent judicial recommendations.
This was argued to:
Dilute judicial primacy.
The core constitutional concern was:
Independence of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court had already recognised:
Judicial independence
as an essential constitutional principle and part of:
Basic Structure.
Established:
Basic Structure Doctrine.
Established:
Judicial primacy
in appointments.
Clarified:
Collegium structure and collective judicial opinion.
The Supreme Court examined whether:
NJAC damaged judicial independence and therefore violated Basic Structure.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015.
NJAC Case.
Also commonly referred to as:
Fourth Judges Case.
The Supreme Court, by:
4:1 majority,
struck down:
99th Constitutional Amendment.
and:
NJAC Act, 2014.
The majority held that:
The NJAC framework impermissibly diluted judicial primacy in judicial appointments.
This was held to affect:
Judicial independence.
The Court treated:
Independence of the judiciary
as part of:
Basic Structure.
Parliament can:
Amend the Constitution.
But it cannot:
Destroy Basic Structure.
Judges decide disputes involving:
Therefore:
Appointment mechanisms must protect institutional independence.
The majority was concerned that:
Non-judicial members could exert decisive influence over judicial appointments.
The majority attached significance to the fact that:
Any two members
could prevent a recommendation.
This was viewed as capable of:
Undermining judicial primacy.
The Court did not establish that:
Every form of executive or non-judicial participation is automatically unconstitutional.
The concern was:
The particular structure and its effect on judicial independence.
The defenders of NJAC argued that broader participation would improve:
The collegium had been criticised for:
The NJAC model was presented as:
A more transparent and participatory alternative
to the collegium.
The majority essentially held:
Accountability and transparency cannot be achieved by compromising a Basic Structure feature.
The:
Collegium System
was:
Restored/continued.
Justice:
J. Chelameswar
gave the principal dissent.
Justice Chelameswar broadly supported:
NJAC.
He strongly criticised:
Collegium opacity and lack of transparency.
The dissent highlighted the other side of the constitutional debate:
Judicial independence
vs
Judicial accountability and transparency.
The proposed system offered:
The issue is not simply:
Collegium vs NJAC.
The larger question is:
How can judicial independence, transparency, accountability and diversity be balanced in judicial appointments?
Judicial appointments directly affect:
Balance between Executive and Judiciary.
The NJAC case demonstrates:
Even Parliament's constitutional amendment power is limited by Basic Structure.
The Supreme Court reviewed:
A constitutional amendment itself
for:
Basic Structure violation.
The 99th Amendment was enacted under:
Article 368.
But:
Article 368 is not unlimited.
The Court examined:
Whether the amendment damaged an essential feature of the Constitution.
The logic was:
Independent judiciary
↓
Effective judicial review
↓
Constitutional supremacy.
The amendment altered the constitutional framework relating to:
Supreme Court appointments.
The appointment of:
High Court judges
was also affected.
The framework also covered:
Transfer of High Court judges.
Not the main NJAC source.
But remember:
Article 143
was central to the:
Third Judges Case, 1998.
This helps distinguish the Judges Cases.
S.P. Gupta.
Executive primacy.
Judicial primacy.
Collegium foundation.
Collegium expanded and clarified.
Alternative mixed appointment framework.
NJAC invalidated.
Collegium retained.
The NJAC framework:
Is not operational.
The:
Collegium System
continues to govern the judicial recommendation process.
The debate remains centred on:
Independence + transparency + accountability + diversity.
The appointments process also operates through:
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
The MoP provides:
Operational procedures
for judicial appointments.
It is not:
The constitutional source of the collegium.
The NJAC debate highlighted a broader problem:
How can a powerful independent institution remain publicly legitimate?
Judicial accountability may involve:
Collegium recommendation + Presidential appointment.
Parliamentary constitutional process for proved misbehaviour/incapacity.
Supreme Court judge:
65 years.
High Court judge:
62 years.
The appointment system affects:
Judicial capacity.
Judicial independence.
Quality of constitutional interpretation.
Public confidence.
A delayed appointment process can contribute to:
Judicial vacancies.
Which can contribute to:
Case pendency and delay.
A modern appointment framework should consider:
while maintaining:
Merit + integrity + competence.
Appointments should reflect:
Institutional integrity and constitutional responsibility.
Can increase:
Democratic accountability.
But may risk:
Political influence.
Can protect:
Independence.
But may create:
Accountability and transparency concerns.
A balanced appointment mechanism should seek:
Independence without opacity.
Transparency without political capture.
Accountability without interference.
Why judicial primacy?
Protect courts from political pressure.
Why criticism of collegium?
Limited transparency and external scrutiny.
Why NJAC?
Broader participation.
Why NJAC was struck down?
Judicial independence was treated as Basic Structure.
Important analytical distinction:
Protecting judicial independence does not automatically mean that every existing feature of the collegium is beyond reform.
The constitutional challenge is to improve:
without:
Undermining judicial independence.
National Judicial Appointments Commission.
99th Amendment, 2014.
NJAC Act, 2014.
124A, 124B, 124C.
CJI + 2 senior Supreme Court judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons.
2015.
4:1.
NJAC struck down.
Justice J. Chelameswar.
Judicial independence.
NJAC was created only by the NJAC Act.
❌ Wrong.
It required:
99th Constitutional Amendment + NJAC Act.
NJAC is currently functioning.
❌ Wrong.
It was:
Struck down in 2015.
NJAC judgment was unanimous.
❌ Wrong.
4:1.
Justice Chelameswar was in the majority.
❌ Wrong.
He was:
Principal dissenter.
The Supreme Court held all executive participation in appointments unconstitutional.
❌ Too broad.
The concern was:
The specific NJAC structure and its effect on judicial independence.
Article 124A existed in the Constitution from 1950.
❌ Wrong.
It was inserted by:
99th Amendment, 2014,
and the amendment was subsequently struck down.
NJAC created judicial primacy.
❌ Wrong.
Judicial primacy was established through:
Second and Third Judges Cases.
Collegium was abolished permanently by the 99th Amendment.
❌ Wrong.
After the 2015 judgment:
Collegium continued.
First Judges Case → Executive primacy.
Second Judges Case → Judicial primacy + collegium foundation.
Third Judges Case → Collegium clarified.
99th Amendment + NJAC Act.
NJAC Case → NJAC struck down.
Executive Primacy → Judicial Primacy → Collegium → NJAC → Collegium restored.
→ Basic Structure limitation on amendment power.
→ Judicial independence.
→ Separation of powers.
→ Transparency + accountability.
→ Debate over representation in appointments.
The most balanced formulation is:
"The NJAC judgment protected judicial independence as Basic Structure, but the post-judgment challenge is to reform the collegium from within so that independence does not become synonymous with opacity."
The NJAC was an attempt to replace India's judicially evolved collegium system with a constitutionally established mixed institutional mechanism. Created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, 2014, it sought greater transparency and participation but was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 on the ground that it diluted judicial independence, a Basic Structure feature.
4:1:
99th Amendment + NJAC Act invalid.
Result:
Collegium restored.
Justice Chelameswar:
Supported NJAC and criticised collegium opacity.
The NJAC episode demonstrates that judicial appointments sit at the intersection of judicial independence, democratic accountability and constitutional supremacy. The lasting challenge is to improve the transparency and accountability of the collegium without exposing judicial appointments to political capture.
