NJAC seeks to replace the collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges.The NJAC will recommend to the President for the appointment and transfer of judges including the CJI of higher judiciary, viz., Supreme Court and High Courts.Constitutional status to NJAC has been provided by the 99th Amendment.A new article, Article 124A has been inserted into the Constitution.
Composition:
The NJAC has the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as chairperson and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court as members, apart from the Union Law Minister and two eminent personalities, of which one of them would be nominated from among the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, minorities, OBCs or women.In NJAC, the two eminent persons would be nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition.A decision of the Commission can be vetoed by any two members.
Pros:
NJAC would usher in an era of accountable Judiciary.After all,the job of a judge should be to judge cases and not to appoint brother judges.Independence of judiciary does not include sitting judges making judicial appointments.Judges functioned independently in the first 40 years, before the collegium system came into existence.Emergency was only one aberration.The tussle between the executive and the judiciary for control over the process of judicial appointments has its origins in the First Judges case.In that case,the S court came down in the favour of the executive.In 1993,however in the Second Judges case, the apex court overruled the First Judges case.This decision led to the birth of the collegium system, the working of which was set up in the Third Judges case.The collegium system had become nothing more than a secret society whose deliberations were not a matter of public record. Collegium consisted of CJI+4 senior most judges and CJI+2 senior most judges for the appointment of SC and HC judges respectively.
Cons:
Independence of Judiciary would be lost.The fear is that the NJAC may encourage High Court judges to give pro-government rulings with the object of gaining eventual promotion to the Supreme Court.
Legislative interfering in Judicial process goes against the "Doctrine of separation of power". Today, the government is the largest litigant in the courts.The influence of the government in any form in the appointment process would affect the independence of judiciary.
