The Collegium and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) are two important bodies in India that are responsible for appointing judges to the higher courts. The Collegium, which was established by the Supreme Court, is a body of five senior judges who make recommendations for judicial appointments. The NJAC, on the other hand, was introduced by the government in 2014 as a new mechanism for judicial appointments, with the aim of reducing the influence of the judiciary in the appointment process. However, the NJAC was challenged in court, and in 2015 the Supreme Court struck it down, reinstating the Collegium as the sole authority for judicial appointments.
The history of the Collegium dates back to the 1990s, when the Supreme Court began to assert its authority over judicial appointments in response to concerns about political interference in the appointment process. Prior to this, the appointment of judges was largely controlled by the executive branch of government, and there were concerns that this had led to the appointment of judges who were not always the most qualified or impartial.
Under the Collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court form a committee that is responsible for recommending judicial appointments to the higher courts. The recommendations are based on a range of factors, including the candidate's legal knowledge, experience, and reputation for impartiality. The recommendations are then forwarded to the government, which has the power to accept or reject them. However, the government is required to provide reasons for any rejection, and the Collegium has the power to reconsider its recommendations in light of these reasons.
The NJAC was introduced by the government in 2014 as a new mechanism for judicial appointments. The NJAC was intended to reduce the influence of the judiciary in the appointment process, and to give the government a greater role in the appointment of judges. Under the NJAC, the appointments would be made by a six-member commission, which would include the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two "eminent persons" nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.
However, the NJAC was challenged in court by a group of lawyers and activists who argued that it violated the principle of separation of powers, and that it would undermine the independence of the judiciary. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, ruling that it was unconstitutional and violated the principle of separation of powers. The court held that the Collegium was the only constitutional mechanism for judicial appointments, and that any changes to this mechanism would require a constitutional amendment.
The decision to strike down the NJAC was controversial, and it sparked a debate about the role of the judiciary in the appointment of judges. Supporters of the NJAC argued that the Collegium system had led to a lack of transparency and accountability in the appointment process, and that the NJAC would have provided a more democratic and representative mechanism for judicial appointments. However, critics of the NJAC argued that it would have given the government too much control over the appointment process, and that this could have undermined the independence of the judiciary.
In conclusion, the Collegium and the NJAC are two important bodies in India that are responsible for judicial appointments. While the Collegium has been the primary mechanism for judicial appointments for several decades, the NJAC was introduced as a new mechanism for appointments in 2014. However, the NJAC was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, and the Collegium remains the sole authority for judicial appointments. The decision to strike down the NJAC was controversial, and it highlighted the ongoing debate about the role of the judiciary in the appointment of judges. Ultimately, the issue of judicial appointments
Comments
Post a Comment