The system of checks and balances shall ensure that none of the three pillars of democracy, namely, executive, legislative and judiciary, encroaches into the powers of others. But since the executive has a role in the appointment of top judicial positions, there is an apprehension of subversion of judicial independence. There has been criticisms over several years on the judicial appointments and the last word is yet to be pronounced. let us recollect the path traversed so far:
Indian constitution is silent on selection of judges though it is categorical on appointments! Since independence, a practice on appointment of judges is in vogue in which Chief Justice of India initiates the judicial appointment proposal, in consultation with his senior colleagues and his recommendation was considered by the President and, if agreed to, the appointment was made. The CJI is anyway appointed by the president on the recommendation of the executive: Mostly seniority was respected! This practice created rumblings of discontent especially in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s efforts to establish the executive’s primacy over the judiciary: For instance, the highly regarded justice H R Khanna on being superseded to the chief justice’s post in 1977.
To limit the interference of executive in the selection of judges, in 1993, SC on its own devised a collegium system that consists of a committee of five senior most judges headed by the CJI to make recommendation to the government for appointment of judges. The names are scrutinised by the law ministry and sent to the president. The president either approves the names or returns the names for reconsideration. If still the Supreme Court sends back the same names, president appoints the persons recommended. Though the revised procedure is in vogue, the Memorandum of Procedure(MoP) sent to the government by SC in 2017, is yet to be notified is another story!
Amid whispered criticism of the working of the collegium (which is never transparent) of favouritism, Parliament established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was a proposed body that would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India in 2014. NJAC would be headed by the chief justice, and half its members are judges of the Supreme Court. Another third of its members are persons of eminence, selected by a panel consisting of the chief justice, the prime minister, and the leader of the largest opposition party. Thus, while introducing checks and balances, the NJAC nevertheless gives India’s judiciary the most say compared to any other country. In fact, the judiciary effectively still gets a veto over appointments. But In a collective order, in 2015 the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional!
But all along, the practice of selection of CJI by the executive, which started the whole series of events, continues to remain the same since independence!
With the recent splurge of criticisms against the appointment of judges of SC on partisan lines, it appears that the Collegium has run its course! Whether a fresh look into the NJAC system needs to be revived? It is time for the highest court to loosen its grip a little, and let the pendulum, which had gone from one extreme to the other, swing back (closer) to the middle. Strangely, the critics of the collegium are the same as the ones who are against NJAC as well! It is india …….
Mind you, India is the only country which has the system of Outgoing judges having the exclusive rights in choice of the next generation of judges: in the selection, familiarity breeds liking (as it appears from the allegations) at least for this breeds, the arena has rights of inheritance, perhaps! Unfortunately any criticism in the public domain is being taken as a contempt rather than inputs for corrective measures?
Isn’t India a mature democracy, whose citizens deserve better especially since SC has anyway the final say in the interpretation of constitution? Does the spirit of ‘offended’ Justice H R Khanna loom large in the form of his nephew Sanjiv Khanna, whose appointment stoked the recent controversy?