UPSC Mains 2017 GS2 Q2 — Judiciary Appointments
Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (Answer in 150 words)
Similar Previous Year Questions
Related Prelims MCQs
Build factual foundation — these MCQs cover facts/concepts you'll need for this Mains question.
-
CAPF 2018 Judicial independence
Which one of the following judgements is associated with the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of Judges in the appointment and transfer of the higher judiciary?
-
CDS-I 2026 Judiciary
Consider the following statements regarding the qualifications of a person for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India : 1. The person has to be, for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession. 2. The person has to be, for at least ten years, an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession. 3. The person is, in the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, a distinguised jurist. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
-
IAS 2012 Judicial independence
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India? 1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India. 2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only. 3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote. 4. All appointments of officers and staffs of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
-
NDA-II 2018 Supreme Court structure and powers
Every Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed by
Source Map — where to read
"• 3. The recommendation of the collegium alongwith the views of its members and that of the senior most Judges of the Supreme Court who hail from the high courts where the persons to be recommended are functioning as Judges should be conveyed by the Chief Justice of India to the Government of India. • 4. NJACJudgment. The 99th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 were enacted with a view to bring more transparency in the judicial appointments. (see chapter 4). In Article 124, for the words "after consultation with such of the Judges of…"
"In the Third Judges case4 ( 1998), the Supreme Court opined that in case of the appointment of high court judges, the chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have replaced the Collegium System of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in 2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJA…"
"In the Third Judges case4 ( 1998), the Supreme Court opined that in case of the appointment of high court judges, the chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have replaced the Collegium System of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in 2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJA…"
"• Me of the Case Na: ; Supreme Court Advocates on Record: ion Association vs. Supreme Court Judgment: It declared the 99th Amendment Act (2014) as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it affects the independence of judiciary, which is one of the components of the basic structure of the constitution. It also declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014) as unconstitutional and void. Further, it declared the earlier 'collegium system' of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to be operative. Impac t of the J udgement: Consequent to this judgem…"
"1. A National Judicial Commission under the Constitution should be established to recommend the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. It should comprise the Chief Justice of India (as chairman), two senior most Judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law minister added oQ.e p\,:r.sPll nominated by the P.resident. • The National Judicial Commission committee should examine complaints of deviant behavior of the Supreme Court and High Court judges, • The retirement age of the judges of High Courts and Supreme Court should be increased to 65 and 6.8 respectively, • No court other than the Sup…"
How this topic is evolving
The discourse has shifted from the narrow constitutionality of the NJAC Act to a broader judicial push for 'functional autonomy' across all high-level appointments. This is evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent interventions in enforcing mandatory tenures for DGPs and scrutinizing the Governor’s executive role as Chancellor to insulate institutions from political spoils systems.
While the NJAC judgment established the primacy of judicial independence in appointments, recent interventions suggest this principle is expanding to other high-level administrative roles. Critically examine the role of the judiciary in shielding the appointments of state police leadership and academic heads from executive discretion. (Answer in 250 words)
Why this framing: Supreme Court's intervention in state DGP appointments and the contestation of Governor’s roles in state universities.
Question Decoded — examiner's intent
- Directive verbs
- Critically examine
- Scope keywords
- Supreme Court's judgementNational Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014appointment of judgeshigher judiciary in India
- Implicit sub-parts
- What were the core legal grounds on which the SC struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act?
- How does the judgement uphold the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' specifically regarding judicial independence?
- What are the persistent criticisms or limitations of the Collegium system that the NJAC sought to address but failed to replace?
- What is the current status of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) post-judgement?
- Common pitfalls
- Spending too many words describing the composition of the NJAC instead of analyzing the 'judgement' itself.
- Failing to mention the specific 'Basic Structure' element involved (Independence of Judiciary).
- Writing a one-sided critique of the Collegium without acknowledging why the SC found the NJAC's executive presence problematic.
- Omitting the 'Fourth Judges Case' (2015) nomenclature and the 99th Amendment reference.
- Dimensions required
- Constitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial Independence vs. Executive OverreachAccountability and Transparency
- Marks allocation hint
Allocate 30 words to the context of the 99th Amendment and the NJAC's aim. Dedicate 60 words to the rationale of the judgement (Basic Structure and Independence). Use the remaining 60 words to critically evaluate the aftermath, including the 'collegium vs. transparency' debate and the need for a reformed Memorandum of Procedure.
How examiners have framed this topic over the years
Transitioned from examining domestic legislative validity (2017) to requiring high-level comparative analysis of judicial appointment models across global democracies (2025).
In 2017, the examiner focused on a specific domestic legislative-judicial conflict regarding the NJAC Act and the internal mechanics of judicial appointments. By 2020, the lens expanded to include a comparative study of judicial practices with the UK, indicating a move toward global benchmarking. This culminated in 2025 with a demand for both historical evolution and a direct comparative critique of the Collegium system against the USA’s appointment model, signaling a shift from procedural domestic questions to sophisticated cross-jurisdictional analysis.
PYQs this pattern was synthesized from
Answer Skeleton — fill this in
Introduction
The 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 aimed to replace the Collegium system with a more diverse body. However, in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck it down to preserve judicial autonomy [M. Laxmikanth, Ch. 25].
Body
Grounds for Striking Down the Act
- Violation of Basic Structure: Independence of the judiciary is an unamendable feature; NJAC compromised this by allowing executive interference [NCERT Class 11, Indian Constitution at Work].
- Executive Encroachment: Inclusion of the Law Minister and "eminent persons" violated Article 50 (Separation of Powers).
- Veto Power Concerns: Provision allowing any two members to veto a candidate could lead to deadlocks or political bias [PRS Legislative Research].
Critical Appraisal of the Judgment
- Persistence of Opaqueness: By reviving the Collegium, the Court was criticized for maintaining a system characterized by "closed-door" deliberations [Yojana, Judicial Reforms Issue].
- Admission of Flaws: The Court acknowledged the Collegium's shortcomings and called for a new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to enhance transparency.
Comparison with Global Practices
- Executive Role: Unlike India, most mature democracies (USA, UK) involve the executive or legislature in judicial appointments [Laxmikanth, Ch. 26].
- Accountability vs. Independence: The judgment prioritized independence over the accountability sought by the NJAC.
Conclusion
While the judgment upheld judicial primacy, it left the "struggle for transparency" unresolved. The way forward lies in finalizing a revised Memorandum of Procedure that balances judicial independence with public accountability and meritocracy.
Ready to practice?
Take this question, write your own answer in 150 words, and get an instant, rubric-based evaluation showing where you stand.
Open evaluation workspace →