National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), Compositions, Functions

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was introduced as a constitutional body to reform the existing collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It aimed to make the process more transparent, participatory, and accountable. 

However, the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015, restoring the collegium system. For UPSC aspirants, understanding NJAC’s provisions, composition, issues, and the judicial review that followed is essential for Polity, Governance, and current affairs.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as an independent constitutional body designed to replace the existing collegium system. Its purpose was to introduce a more transparent, broad-based, and accountable mechanism for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts in India. Through this Act, Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C were inserted into the Constitution, formally establishing the NJAC as a constitutional body responsible for recommending appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

• Created a six-member constitutional body called the NJAC to oversee appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Replaced the collegium system, which was previously responsible for judicial appointments.
• Inserted Articles 124A to 124C, defining the NJAC’s composition, powers, and procedures.
• Provided for the inclusion of two eminent persons, the Law Minister, and senior judges to ensure broader participation.
• Aimed to promote transparency, accountability, and checks and balances in the judicial appointment process.

Judicial Appointments Constitutional Provisions

Judicial appointments in India are governed by Articles 124, 217, and 222 of the Constitution. These provisions outline how Supreme Court and High Court judges are appointed and transferred.

• Article 124 – Deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
• Article 217 – Provides for the appointment of High Court judges.
• Article 222 – Allows for the transfer of High Court judges by the President after consultation with the CJI.
• Article 368 – Amended to add the NJAC through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014.
• Article 124A-124C – Inserted to establish NJAC and define its composition and powers.

‹ ›

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Composition

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was envisioned as a six-member constitutional body combining judicial, executive, and independent voices. This structure was designed to diversify decision-making authority so that no single institution could dominate. The inclusion of eminent persons was meant to represent civil society and reduce insularity in judicial appointments.

Selection of Eminent Persons

• Chosen by a 3-member committee: PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition.
• At least one should belong to SC/ST/OBC/minority community or be a woman.
• Tenure: 3 years, with no reappointment.
• Aimed to represent diversity and improve accountability.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Functions

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was empowered to handle the entire framework of judicial appointments and transfers. It would recommend appointments to the President and ensure that judges were selected based on merit, integrity, and suitability.

• Recommend appointments of the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court judges, Chief Justices of High Courts, and High Court judges.
• Evaluate candidates based on merit, seniority, judicial experience, legal expertise, and integrity.
• Recommend transfers of High Court judges after considering administrative and functional needs.
• Collect and examine background information through consultations with state authorities, bar associations, and other stakeholders.
• Ensure transparency by establishing criteria, procedures, and timelines for judicial appointments.

Reason for the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Struck Down

In the landmark judgment Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014 as unconstitutional. The Court held that the judiciary must remain independent to protect fundamental rights, and any change that substantially reduces judicial primacy violates the basic structure doctrine.

• Judicial Independence Undermined: Inclusion of the Law Minister and eminent persons meant external influence over judicial appointments, compromising independence.
• Basic Structure Violation: Judicial independence is a core aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure, and any amendment weakening it is invalid.
• Two-Member Veto Problem: The provision allowing any two NJAC members to block a recommendation risked creating deadlocks and giving excessive control to non-judicial members.
• Executive Overreach Concerns: The government’s involvement in selecting eminent persons created possibilities of political interference.
• Ambiguity in Criteria: Lack of clear qualifications for eminent persons created space for arbitrary or politically motivated selection.

Issues With National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

While National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) attempted to democratize the process, several concerns emerged around its composition and mechanism. Critics argued that NJAC reintroduced executive influence, which the judiciary had gradually reduced to preserve its autonomy.

• Potential Loss of Judicial Primacy: Judicial control over appointments would reduce significantly with the inclusion of executives and non-judicial members.
• Risk of Political Influence: Since eminent persons were indirectly appointed with government participation, political biases could enter the system.
• Veto Provision Problem: The two-member veto could stall appointments unnecessarily, leading to delays and vacancies in courts.
• Broad and Ambiguous Criteria: The term “eminent person” lacked specificity, risking appointment of individuals without legal expertise.
• Structural Imbalance: Equal representation of judiciary, executive, and others could dilute the core principle of an independent judiciary.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Way Forward

Even though NJAC was struck down, the debate on judicial reforms continues. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged the need to improve the collegium system. There is growing consensus that reforms should enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency while protecting judicial independence.

Proposed Reforms

• Transparent Collegium Procedure: Publish criteria, minutes, and reasons for appointment decisions to improve public trust.
• Independent Secretariat: Establish a professional secretariat to conduct research, verify credentials, and manage documentation for judicial appointments.
• Objective Evaluation Metrics: Use standardized parameters such as judgments delivered, legal expertise, integrity reports, and domain specialization.
• Broader Consultation Mechanisms: Allow structured input from senior advocates, bar councils, and legal experts while keeping decision-making independent.
• Increase Diversity: Ensure adequate representation of women, minorities, and marginalized sections in higher judiciary.
• Periodic Review Mechanism: Introduce performance assessment frameworks before elevation from High Court to Supreme Court.