imported>SoloKnowHow83: /* Support for NJAC */ Fixed grammar

2021-06-22T19:21:38Z

Support for NJAC: Fixed grammar

New page

{{for|the commission in England and Wales|Judicial Appointments Commission}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2018}}
{{Use Indian English|date=November 2018}}
{{Infobox legislation
|short_title = National Judicial Appointments Commission, 2014
|legislature = [[Parliament of India]]
|image =
|imagesize = 150px
|imagealt =
|caption =
|long_title = An Act further to amend the Constitution of India.
|citation = [http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/99th.pdf 99th Constitutional Amendment Act]
|territorial_extent = [[India]]
|enacted_by =
|date_passed =
|enacted_by2 =
|date_passed2 =
|date_assented = 15 August 2014
|date_commenced = 31 December 2014
|date_repealed = 16 October 2015
|administered_by =
|bill =
|bill_citation =
|bill_date =
|introduced_by =
|1st_reading =
|2nd_reading =
|3rd_reading =
|conf_committee_passed =
|bill2 =
|bill_citation2 =
|bill_date2 =
|introduced_by2 =
|1st_reading2 =
|2nd_reading2 =
|3rd_reading2 =
|conf_committee_passed2 =
|date_conf_committee =
|white_paper =
|committee_report =
|amendments =
|repeals =
|related_legislation =
|summary =
|keywords =
|status = repealed
}}

'''National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)''' was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of '''judges''' and '''legal specialists''' in [[India]]. The Commission was established by amending the [[Constitution of India]] through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the [[Lok Sabha]] on 13 August 2014 and by the [[Rajya Sabha]] on 14 August 2014.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Constitutions (Ninety-ninth) Amendment) Bill, 2014|url=http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/constitution%20121st/121st%20(A)%20Bill%20as%20passed%20by%20LS.pdf|publisher=Govt, of India|access-date=15 August 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.btvin.com/videos/watch/8408/rajya-sabha-passes-first-njac-bill| title= Rajya Sabha Passes First NJAC Bill| publisher= [[Bloomberg TV India]]}}</ref> The NJAC would have replaced the [[Three Judges Cases|collegium system]] for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the [[Indian Parliament|Parliament of India]] to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.<ref>{{cite web|title=National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014|url=http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/national%20judicial/National%20Judicial%20bill%20as%20passed%20by%20LS.pdf|access-date=15 August 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014|url=http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-national-judicial-appointments-commission-bill-2014-3359/|website=PRS Legislative Research|access-date=15 August 2014}}</ref><ref name="121 Bill">{{cite web|title=The Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014|url=http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/PassedLoksabha/97C_2014_LS_Eng.pdf|publisher=Parliament of India|access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref><ref name="NJAC 2014 Bill">{{cite web|title=National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014|url=http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/PassedLoksabha/97C_2014_LS_Eng.pdf|publisher=Parliament of India|access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref> The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the [[President of India]] [[Pranab Mukherjee]] on 31 December 2014.<ref>{{cite news|title=New judicial panel gets President's nod, collegium system ends|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/New-judicial-panel-gets-Presidents-nod-collegium-system-ends/articleshow/45703254.cms|access-date=1 January 2015|agency=PTI|publisher=Times of India|date=31 December 2014}}</ref> The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2015/01/national-judicial-appointments-commission-laws/|title = National Judicial Appointments Commission – Overview|date = 2 January 2015|access-date = 3 June 2015|website = 1, Law Street}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014|url=http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2015/163428.pdf|publisher=Gazette of India|access-date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (40 of 2014)|url=http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2015/163432.pdf|publisher=Gazette of India|access-date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2015/04/notified-constitution-ninety-ninth-amendment-act-2014-and-national-judicial-appointments-commission-act-2014/#sthash.OIYreSG1.dpbs|title = NOTIFIED: Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amend) Act, 2014 & National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014|date = 13 April 2015|access-date = 30 April 2015|website = 1, Law Street}}</ref>

On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] by 4:1 Majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies with Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead petitioner.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association & Anr. v/s Union of India (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2015)|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-10-16_1444997560.pdf#page=453|website=Supreme Court of India|date=16 October 2015 |access-date=17 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/supreme-court-upholds-collegium-system-of-appointment-of-judges-rules-njac-unconstitutional-1152564.html |title=Supreme Court upholds collegium system of appointment of judges, rules NJAC unconstitutional |publisher=[[CNN-IBN|IBN Live]]| date=16 October 2015}}</ref> Justices [[Jagdish Singh Khehar|J. S. Khehar]], [[Madan Lokur]], [[Kurian Joseph]] and [[Adarsh Kumar Goel]] had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice [[Jasti Chelameswar]] upheld it.<ref>{{cite news |title=NJAC Act unconstitutional, collegium system to continue: Apex Court |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/njac-act-unconstitutional-collegium-system-to-continue-apex-court/article7769481.ece |access-date=26 October 2018 |agency=Press Trust of India |publisher=The Hindu Business Line |date=16 October 2015 |language=en}}</ref>

==Constitution of NJAC==
A new article, Article 124A, (which provides for the composition of the NJAC) has been inserted into the Constitution.

===Composition===
As per the amended provisions of the constitution, the Commission would have consisted of the following six persons:

* [[Chief Justice of India]] (Chairperson, ''[[Ex officio member|ex officio]]'')
* Two other of senior judges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice of India - ''ex officio''
* The [[Minister of Law and Justice (India)|Union Minister of Law and Justice]], ''ex-officio''
* Two eminent persons

These (two) eminent persons would have been nominated by a committee consisting of the
* Chief Justice of India,
* Prime Minister of India, and
* Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or where there is no such Leader of Opposition, then, the Leader of single largest Opposition Party in Lok Sabha), provided that of the two eminent persons, one person would be from the [[Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes|Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes]] or [[Other Backward Class|OBC]] or [[Minority group|minority communities]] or a woman. The eminent persons shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for re-nomination.

==Functions of the Commission==

As per the amended constitution, the functions of the Commission would have included the following:

* [[Three Judges Cases|Recommending]] persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of High Courts and other Judges of High Courts.
* Recommending transfer of Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts from one High Court to any other High Court.
* Ensuring that the persons recommended are of ability, merit and other criteria mentioned in the regulations related to the act.

==Procedures to be followed by the Commission==

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, had laid down the following procedures for the selection of the Judges of the higher judiciary.

===Procedure for selection of Supreme Court judges===

====Chief Justice of India====
The Commission shall recommend the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court for appointment as Chief Justice of India. This is provided he/she is considered fit to hold the office. However, this must be according to the knowledge one possess rather than the age.

====Supreme Court judges====
The Commission shall recommend names of persons on the basis of their ability, merit and other criteria specified in the regulations.

The Commission shall not recommend a person for appointment if any two of its members do not agree to such recommendation.

===Procedure for selection of High Courts judges===

====Chief Justices of High Courts====
The Commission shall recommend a Judge of a High Court to be the Chief Justice of a High Court on the basis of seniority across High Court judges. The ability, merit and other criteria of suitability as specified in the regulations would also be considered.

====Appointment of other High Court judges====
The Commission shall seek nominations from Chief Justice of the concerned High Court for appointments of High Court Judges or forward a list of such names to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts for his/her views. In both cases, the Chief Justice of the High Court shall consult two senior most judges of that High Court and any other judges and advocates as specified in the regulations. The Commission shall elicit the views of the Governor and Chief Minister of the state before making recommendations. The Commission shall not recommend a person for appointment if any two members of the Commission do not agree to such [[Three Judges Cases|recommendation]].

==Challenge to the constitutionality==
The validity of the constitutional amendment act and the NJAC Act were challenged by certain lawyers, lawyer associations and groups before the Supreme Court of India through public interest litigation writ petitions.<ref name=njac-challenge-1>{{cite news|title=NJAC Act and 99th constitutional amendment faces challenge at Supreme Court; petitions by AoR Association and Senior Advocates|url=http://onelawstreet.com/2015/01/njac-act-and-99th-constitutional-amendment-faces-challenge-at-supreme-court-petitions-by-aor-association-and-senior-advocates/|access-date=3 June 2015|work=1, Law Street|date=2 January 2015}}</ref> Earlier in August 2014, Supreme Court had dismissed few Writ Petitions challenging the validity of NJAC on the ground that the challenge was premature as the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act had not been notified then.<ref>{{Cite news|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2014/08/njac-premature-challenge-dismissed/|title = NJAC premature challenge dismissed by the Supreme Court|date = 25 August 2014|work = 1, Law Street|access-date = 3 June 2015}}</ref> After the fresh challenge in 2015 after the acts were notified, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a [[Constitution Bench (India)|Constitution Bench]].<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2015/04/njac-challenge-referred-to-constitution-bench-supreme-court-aor-association-v-uoi-judgment-7-april-2015/|title = Supreme Court refers NJAC Challenge to Constitution Bench – SCAORA v. UOI|date = 8 April 2015|access-date = 3 June 2015|website = 1, Law Street}}</ref>

==SC declares NJAC unconstitutional==

In a collective order, on 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 struck down the NJAC Act, 2014 meant to replace the two-decade old collegium system of appointing judges in the higher judiciary.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://onelawstreet.com/2015/10/sc-declares-njac-unconstitutional-chelameswar-j-dissents-read-judgment/|title = SC declares NJAC unconstitutional; Chelameswar J dissents [Read Judgment]|date = 16 October 2015|access-date = 21 October 2015|website = 1, Law Street}}</ref><ref name=njac/> The judgement was hailed by lawyers [[Prashant Bhushan]] and [[Ram Jethmalani]], who had appeared for the petitioners challenging NJAC, while other jurists, lawyers and activists such as [[Kottayan Katankot Venugopal|KK Venugopal]], [[K. T. S. Tulsi|KTS Tulsi]] and [[Nagabhairava Jayaprakash Narayana|Jayaprakash Narayana]] opposed it.<ref name=njac>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-verdict-on-njac-and-collegium-system/article7769266.ece?homepage=true |title=SC declares NJAC unconstitutional, upholds Collegium|publisher=[[The Hindu|THE HINDU]]| date=16 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url = http://barandbench.com/india-has-taken-a-step-backwards-by-retaining-the-collegium-kk-venugopal/|title = "India has taken a step backwards by retaining the collegium" - Senior Advocate KK Venugopal|date = 20 October 2015|work = Bar & Bench|access-date = 21 October 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151021065049/http://barandbench.com/india-has-taken-a-step-backwards-by-retaining-the-collegium-kk-venugopal/|archive-date = 21 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.firstpost.com/india/from-bjp-to-congress-reactions-to-supreme-court-striking-down-the-njac-act-2471078.html|title=From BJP to Congress: Reactions to Supreme Court striking down the NJAC Act|publisher=[[Firstpost|FIRSTPOST]]| date=16 October 2015}}</ref>

== Support for NJAC ==
The only one of the five-judge bench who opposed the majority decision was [[Jasti Chelameswar]], who held that the proposed composition of the NJAC would not be a constitutional issue, and that it could have acted “as a check on unwholesome trade-offs within the collegium and incestuous accommodations between Judicial and Executive branches.”<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself|last=Dev|first=Atul|website=The Caravan|language=en|access-date=2019-07-20}}</ref>

=== Later developments ===

On 3 November 2015 the Supreme Court upheld that it is open to bringing greater transparency in the collegium system within the following existing four parameters, with opinions from both the parties(petitioners who challenged the NJAC and the government).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-asks-centre-to-compile-views-to-improve-judicial-appointments/article7837465.ece?homepage=true|title=SC asks Centre to compile views to improve judge appointments|publisher=[[The Hindu]]| date=3 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/collegium-system-will-remain-in-existing-parameters-says-supreme-court-1160197.html|title=Collegium system will remain in existing parameters, says Supreme Court|publisher=IBN Live| date=3 November 2015}}</ref>
* How the collegium can be made transparent
* The fixing of the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered suitable for appointment as a judge
* A process to receive and deal with complaints against judges without compromising on judicial independence
* Debate on whether a separate secretariat is required, and if so, its functioning, composition and powers

On 19 November 2015 the [[Attorney General of India|Attorney General]] [[Mukul Rohatgi]] informed the Supreme Court that the central government will not prepare a draft memorandum for judicial appointments contrary to committed earlier and suggested the same to be done through a judgement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ag-pulls-out-of-drafting-procedure-to-appoint-judges/article7895541.ece?homepage=true|title=AG pulls out of drafting procedure to appoint judges|publisher=[[The Hindu]]|date=19 November 2015}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Three Judges Cases]]
* [[Basic structure doctrine]]
* [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]]
* [[Amendment of the Constitution of India]]
*[[All-India Judicial Service]]: another proposed system of appointment to the judiciary

==References==
{{reflist}}

<ref>Arguments and COunter Arguments before SC ;http://www.livelaw.in/njac-conundrum-re-cap-of-arguments-and-counter-arguments-with-written-submission/</ref>

==External links==
* [http://onelawstreet.com/2015/01/national-judicial-appointments-commission-laws/ National Judicial Appointments Commission – Overview]
* [http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/99th.pdf 99th Constitutional Amendment Act]
* [http://onelawstreet.com/2015/10/sc-declares-njac-unconstitutional-chelameswar-j-dissents-read-judgment/ Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India declaring NJAC and 99th Constitution Amendment as unconstitutional]

{{Judiciary of India}}

[[Category:Repealed Indian legislation]]
[[Category:Constitutional history of India]]
[[Category:Constitution of India]]
[[Category:Constitutional amendments|India]]
[[Category:Acts of the Parliament of India]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India]]
[[Category:Proposed organizations]]
[[Category:Judicial nominations and appointments]]

National Judicial Appointments Commission - Revision history

imported>SoloKnowHow83: /* Support for NJAC */ Fixed grammar