| PYQ Relevance: Q) Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC CSE 2017) Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020) |
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains has always focused on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ (2017) and Comparison between judicial systems in India and the UK (2020)
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is starting his final working week. During his time leading the Supreme Court Collegium, the team worked hard to fill judicial vacancies but overlooked some important issues.In two years, the Collegium supported free speech online, dignity for all regardless of sexual orientation, and fairness in judicial appointments.
Today’s editorial talks about the reform in the Collegium system of India and this content will help you in the Mains answer (GS II) paper to steps taken in reform related to the Judicial system in India.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
Recently, two significant developments regarding the Supreme Court of India’s Collegium have emerged – firstly, the interviews for Judicial Candidates and secondly the exclusion of Relatives in Judiciary.
- The Collegium will now conduct interviews for candidates recommended for High Court elevation, shifting from a reliance on biodata to personal assessments.
- The Collegium is considering excluding candidates with close relatives who are or have been judges, aiming to reduce nepotism and promote diversity in judicial appointments.
How is the Collegium system adapting to recent controversies and challenges?
- Candidate Interviews: The Collegium has decided to conduct interviews for candidates recommended for elevation to High Courts. This step aims to enhance the selection process by allowing decision-makers to engage directly with nominees, thereby improving the assessment of their qualifications.
- Exclusion of Relatives: The Collegium plans to exclude candidates whose close relatives have served or are currently serving as judges in the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
- This initiative seeks to promote diversity within the judiciary and reduce concerns about nepotism, although it recognizes that some deserving candidates may be overlooked.
- Need for Formal Rules: There is a pressing need for a clear set of binding rules governing the Collegium’s functioning. Currently, the system operates without formal regulations, leading to concerns about accountability and transparency. Establishing such rules is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
| What is the Collegium system? The Three Judges Cases form the cornerstone of the collegium system in India, which governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary. These cases interpreted the provisions of Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution, dealing with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive (President) has primacy in judicial appointments, and the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) opinion is not binding, granting greater power to the executive. • Second Judges Case (1993): The court overruled the First Judges Case, establishing the collegium system, where judicial appointments and transfers are decided by the judiciary, led by the CJI and senior judges, ensuring judicial independence. • Third Judges Case (1998): The collegium was expanded to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments and CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments, refining the process for transparency and collective decision-making. What is the criticism of the Collegium system? • NJAC Act (2014): Parliament attempted to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, the NJAC was struck down in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) as unconstitutional, as it was deemed to compromise the independence of the judiciary. • Ongoing Debates: Critics argue that the collegium system lacks transparency, accountability, and an objective process for appointments. Reforms to balance independence with accountability remain a contentious issue. |
What are the potential consequences of leadership changes within the Supreme Court for the Collegium’s future?
- Impact on Reform Initiatives: New Chief Justices may prioritize different aspects of judicial appointments, influencing how reforms are implemented. A Chief Justice committed to reform could advocate for greater transparency and adherence to established procedures, while a more conservative leader might resist changes.
- Shifts in Decision-Making Dynamics: The leadership style of incoming Chief Justices can alter the dynamics within the Collegium, affecting how candidates are evaluated and selected. This could lead to variations in collegial discussions and recommendations.
- Implementation of Existing Rules: The ability to enforce existing legal frameworks related to judicial appointments will depend on the leadership’s willingness to uphold rulings from previous Judges’ cases. Respecting these rulings is crucial for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that the law is followed.
Way forward:
- Formalize Collegium Procedures: Draft and implement clear binding rules to govern the Collegium’s functioning which ensures transparency, accountability, and merit-based judicial appointments while addressing concerns of nepotism and bias.
- Strengthen Institutional Practices: Institutionalize reforms like candidate interviews, broaden diversity, and adopt technology-driven decision-making to enhance efficiency, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary.
