Judicial Independence and Accountability: The NJAC Debate in India

The recent incident of money recovery from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a Delhi High Court judge, has sparked a renewed debate about whether there is a need for a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has called for a discussion on the issue, highlighting the importance of ensuring transparency and accountability in the judiciary. This incident has brought to the forefront the long-standing concerns regarding the appointment of judges and the need for a more robust and transparent system. The controversy originated after the sudden blaze that erupted at Justice Yashwant Varma’s home on March 14, 2025. The incident has raised concerns about the judiciary’s fragility and mode of functioning.

As discussions on judicial reforms continue, the debate over balancing independence and accountability remains vital for strengthening the judiciary. The National Judicial Appointments Commission bill (NJAC) was a constitutional amendment introduced in 2014, aimed at overhauling the existing collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The bill proposed the establishment of a six-member commission, which would include the Chief Justice of India, the two seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent individuals nominated by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition. The intention behind the NJAC was to create a more transparent and merit-based process for judicial appointments. However, it faced significant opposition, particularly from within the judiciary itself.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of India ruled against the NJAC in a landmark case known as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India. A five-judge constitution bench delivered its verdict with a 4:1 majority, declaring both the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, unconstitutional, thus invalidating them. The court asserted that the NJAC would undermine the independence of the judiciary, as it would facilitate executive influence over judicial appointments. This decision came despite the NJAC receiving support from all political parties in both Houses of Parliament, and ratification by over 50% of state legislatures, including those governed by the Congress and Left parties. This ruling was viewed as a significant setback for the government’s efforts to reform the judicial appointment process.

Despite the controversy surrounding the NJAC, there are several arguments supporting the establishment of such a commission. One of the primary advantages of the NJAC is that it would enhance transparency in the appointment process. The existing collegium system has been criticised for being opaque, with decisions often being made behind closed doors. The NJAC would provide a more structured and transparent process, allowing for greater accountability. Additionally, the NJAC would enable the inclusion of diverse perspectives, as it would comprise members from various backgrounds, including the executive, judiciary, and civil society. A balanced committee—led by the CJI and comprising the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court, an eminent jurist appointed by the judiciary, and a non-voting executive representative—can promote transparency while ensuring that judicial independence is maintained. A clear, merit-based criterion for selecting eminent persons would enhance credibility, ensuring that the process remains impartial, inclusive, and aligned with constitutional values. The NJAC would introduce a more structured and transparent process, fostering greater accountability within the judicial system.  A productive solution could involve examining a hybrid model that combines the strengths of the NJAC and the collegium system, encouraging collaboration among the judiciary, executive, and civil society while maintaining judicial authority in appointments. One of the key benefits of the NJAC would be its potential to tackle the pressing issue of judicial vacancies. The Indian judiciary is currently experiencing a significant crisis, with more than 40% of positions in the high courts and the Supreme Court left unfilled. The NJAC could effectively streamline the appointment process by making sure that these vacancies are addressed on time.

However, there are several concerns regarding the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). A primary objection is that it may compromise the independence of the judiciary. The involvement of executive members in the commission raises the risk of political interference in the appointment process. Furthermore, the NJAC’s emphasis on “eminent persons” raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary appointments. There is also the possibility that the NJAC could be used as a vehicle for political patronage, undermining the integrity of the judiciary. Another significant concern is that the NJAC might lead to a judiciary dominated by individuals who share a particular ideology or agenda; such a scenario could hinder the judiciary’s ability to deliver impartial justice, ultimately affecting public confidence in the legal system. These concerns highlight the need for a careful balance between judicial accountability and independence in any appointment mechanism

It is important to highlight that numerous countries have established similar commissions to oversee the appointment of judges. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Judicial Appointments Commission is tasked with selecting candidates for judicial positions. Likewise, in Australia, the Judicial Appointments Board plays a pivotal role in appointing judges to the federal judiciary. In India, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) has been designed after the model of the Judicial Appointments Commission in the UK. However, the Indian context is distinct due to the country’s intricate federal structure and the significant authority of its judiciary.

The underrepresentation of women and marginalised communities in India’s higher judiciary remains an issue. As of 2023, women comprised only 14.27% of judges in the higher judiciary. These figures highlight the need for a more diverse judiciary. Public sentiment favours reforms and shows strong support for greater transparency in judicial appointments. The NJAC aimed to address these issues by broadening selection criteria, but its implementation remains contested. The debate surrounding the NJAC highlights the difficulty of maintaining transparency and accountability within the judicial appointment process. 

Ultimately, the decision to implement a commission like the NJAC necessitates careful consideration of these competing interests. As we progress, it is crucial to engage in a nuanced and informed dialogue, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a commission. The government, judiciary, and civil society must collaborate to find a solution that effectively balances the need for transparency and accountability with the imperative of safeguarding judicial independence.