ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, enshrines the separation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary. It ensures the judiciary’s independence from the other two branches, a principle reflected in appointing judges to the higher judiciary. This appointment process is crucial, sensitive, and a subject of ongoing debate.
For decades, the collegium system has been established for judicial appointments in India, which is considered a tradition within the judiciary. In 2014, Parliament introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as an alternative, sparking significant controversy regarding its constitutionality and impact on the basic structure of the Constitution. Critics of the collegium system point to its lack of transparency and autocratic nature, while opponents of the NJAC argue that it compromises judicial independence by involving the executive in judicial appointments.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, declaring it unconstitutional, thereby reinstating the collegium system as the sole method for appointing judges to the higher judiciary.
This research provides an overview of the collegium system, its features, and its merits and demerits in the judicial appointment process. It also examines the NJAC and its constitutional validity, including scrutiny of landmark Supreme Court judgments on the NJAC and the broader issue of judicial appointments.
Keywords: Constitution, Judiciary, Collegium, Autocratic, Appointment.