(General Studies II – Constitution – Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions. Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries.)
- Judicial appointments in India have been a topic of considerable debate, especially with respect to the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
- With over 60 lakh pending cases in various High Courts and 30% vacancies, the issue of delayed justice is intertwined with the judicial appointment process.
- Recently, 32 years after a blackmail and sexual abuse case in Ajmer, a POCSO court convicted six individuals, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
- The Collegium system currently governs the appointments of judges, but it has been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, introduced in 2014, was intended to reform this process but was struck down by the Supreme Court.
| Year\Court | Supreme Court | High Courts | Lower Courts |
| 2014 | 63000 | 41 Lakh | 2.6 Cr |
| 2024 | 83000 | 60 Lakh | 4.5 Cr |
Table: Case Pending at Various Levels of Judiciary, Source: NJDG
Collegium System of Judicial Appointments –
- The President appoints the Judges of the Supreme Court under Article 124 whereas the Judges of the High Court are appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary.
- The Collegium system in India evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998) giving different interpretations of the word ‘consultation’.
- The Collegium system allows the judiciary to recommend judicial appointments without interference from the executive or legislature.
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court decide on appointments and transfers of judges at the highest level.
Global Perspectives on Judicial Appointments –
| Country | Judicial Appointment Process | Key Members |
| United Kingdom | The Constitutional Reform Act, of 2005 created a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to nominate judges for England and Wales. | – Lay member as chairperson – Six judicial members – Two professional members (solicitor or barrister) – Five lay members – One non-legally qualified member |
| South Africa | The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advises the President of South Africa on the appointment of judges. | – Chief Justice – President of the Supreme Court of Appeal – Minister of Justice – Representatives from the legal profession and academia – National Assembly Delegates |
| France | Judges are selected through the High Council of the Judiciary (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature), which advises on appointments. | – President of the Republic (symbolic role) – High Council of the Judiciary |
Challenges in India’s Judicial Appointment Process –
- Delayed Appointments: Vacancies in the higher judiciary, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, lead to delays in delivering justice.
- Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The Collegium system has been criticized for its lack of transparency, with no public criteria for judicial appointments. This has led to perceptions of favouritism and nepotism in appointments, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
- Executive-Judiciary Standoff: Delays in appointments are often due to tensions between the judiciary and the executive. The government sometimes holds back on clearing recommendations made by the Collegium, exacerbating vacancies.
| Black Coat Syndrome: • President Droupadi Murmu referred to the “Black Coat Syndrome” at the National Conference of the District Judiciary. • It is the reluctance of the poor to approach courts due to the financial and mental toll of prolonged judicial processes, citing delays of years. |
Way Forward –
- Need for Balance: There is a need to rework the NJAC to ensure both judicial independence and transparency. Incorporating suggestions from all stakeholders, including the judiciary, the executive, and civil society, could lead to a more balanced structure.
- Transparent Criteria: A reformed NJAC could introduce clear criteria for judicial appointments, ensuring merit-based selections and diversity in the judiciary.
- Involvement of Multiple Stakeholders: The new system could include representatives from: the judiciary (to ensure independence), executive (to maintain accountability), Civil society (to represent public interest), and Legal professionals (to ensure competence and professionalism).
- Lessons from Other Countries: India could adopt elements from global models like the UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission or South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission, which involve a broader set of stakeholders in the selection process.
India’s judicial appointment system stands at a critical juncture. Reform is vital to address the vast backlog of cases and deliver timely justice, as “justice delayed is justice denied.” Equally important is preserving judicial independence to avoid the pitfalls of “justice hurried is justice buried.” Striking a balance between judicial independence and accountability is crucial for upholding India’s rule of law and safeguarding judicial integrity.
