This article needs additional citations for verification .(January 2022) |
National Judicial Appointments Commission, 2014 | |
---|---|
Parliament of India | |
| |
Citation | 99th Constitutional Amendment Act |
Territorial extent | India |
Assented to | 15 August 2014 |
Commenced | 31 December 2014 |
Repealed | 16 October 2015 |
Struck down by | |
Supreme Court of India | |
Status: Struck down |
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judicial officers, legal officers and legal employees under the government of India and in all state governments of India. The commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the 99th constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. [1] [2] The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme Court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. [3] [4] [5] [6] The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. [7] The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015. [8] [9] [10] [11]
On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies with Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead petitioner. [12] [13] Justices J. S. Khehar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Jasti Chelameswar upheld it. [14]
A new article, Article 124A, (which provides for the composition of the NJAC) has been inserted into the Constitution.
As per the amended provisions of the constitution, the Commission would have consisted of the following six persons:
These (two) eminent persons would have been nominated by a committee consisting of the
The All India Judicial Service Officers are group 'A' gazetted officers. The promotional hierarchy of All India Judicial Service officers is mentioned below (Bottom to Top)
The promotional hierarchy of All India Legal Service (Group 'A' gazetted officers) in mentioned below (Bottom to Top)
There shall be one state regional legal service cadre per state of India. The promotional hierarchy of State Regional Legal Service (Group 'A' gazetted officers) is mentioned below (Bottom to Top)
All of the "Indian Legal Services" (Group 'A' gazetted officers) shall be allotted to all the attached offices, specialised units, autonomous organisations/bodies, regulatory bodies, statutory bodies, statutory corporations, national apex bodies, public sector units, subsidiaries of public sector units, divisions of public sector units and all other government establishments under Government of India. The hierarchy of Indian Legal Services Officers in any of the central government establishments under the government of India shall be in the following manner.
The list of "Indian legal services" cadres shall be as follows:
There shall be as many "State Legal Services" cadres per state of India as decided by the state governments of India. "State Legal Service" Group 'B' gazetted officers shall be allotted to all the attached offices, specialised units, autonomous organisations/bodies, regulatory bodies, statutory bodies, state apex bodies, statutory corporations, public sector units, subsidiaries of public sector units, divisions of public sector units etc. and all other government establishments under each of the state governments of India. The hierarchy of state legal service officers in any of the state government establishments under any of the state governments of India shall be in the following manner.
The list of "state legal services" cadres shall be as follows:
As per the amended constitution, the functions of the Commission would have included the following:
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, had laid down the following procedures for the selection of the Judges of the higher judiciary.
The Commission shall recommend the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court for appointment as Chief Justice of India. This is provided he/she is considered fit to hold the office. However, this must be according to the knowledge one possesses rather than the age.
The Commission shall recommend names of persons on the basis of their ability, merit and other criteria specified in the regulations.
The Commission shall not recommend a person for appointment if any two of its members do not agree to such recommendation.
The Commission shall recommend a Judge of a High Court to be the Chief Justice of a High Court on the basis of seniority across High Court judges. The ability, merit and other criteria of suitability as specified in the regulations would also be considered.
The Commission shall seek nominations from Chief Justice of the concerned High Court for appointments of High Court Judges or forward a list of such names to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts for his/her views. In both cases, the Chief Justice of the High Court shall consult two senior-most judges of that High Court and any other judges and advocates as specified in the regulations. The Commission shall elicit the views of the Governor and Chief Minister of the state before making recommendations. The Commission shall not recommend a person for appointment if any two members of the Commission do not agree to such recommendation.
The validity of the constitutional amendment act and the NJAC Act were challenged by certain lawyers, lawyer associations and groups before the Supreme Court of India through public interest litigation writ petitions [15] who saw it as an attempt by the government to compromise with the independence of the country's judiciary. Earlier in August 2014, Supreme Court had dismissed the few writ petitions challenging the validity of NJAC on the ground that the challenge was premature as the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act had not been notified then. [16] After the fresh challenge in 2015 after the acts were notified, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. [17]
In a collective order, on 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 struck down the NJAC Act, 2014 meant to replace the two-decade old collegium system of appointing judges in the higher judiciary [18] [19] stating that the NJAC was a clear attempt to compromise independence of the judiciary, which went against the Constitution's basic structure. The judgement was hailed by activist lawyers like Prashant Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani, who had appeared for the petitioners challenging NJAC, while other jurists, lawyers and activists such as KK Venugopal, KTS Tulsi and Jayaprakash Narayana opposed it. [19] [20] [21]
The only one of the five-judge bench who opposed the majority decision was Jasti Chelameswar, who held that the proposed composition of the NJAC would not be a constitutional issue, and that it could have acted “as a check on unwholesome trade-offs within the collegium and incestuous accommodations between Judicial and Executive branches.” [22]
The ruling party of India, Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been the main advocate of the NJAC, remains committed to it, citing instances of favouritism & nepotism within the collegium system, [23] the most notable case being the D. Y. Chandrachud, son of former CJI Y. V. Chandrachud being elevated by the collegium to be the next CJI.
On 3 November 2015 the Supreme Court upheld that it is open to bringing greater transparency in the collegium system within the following existing four parameters, with opinions from both the parties(petitioners who challenged the NJAC and the government). [24] [25]
On 19 November 2015 the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the Supreme Court that the central government will not prepare a draft memorandum for judicial appointments contrary to committed earlier and suggested the same to be done through a judgement. [26]
On December 8, 2022, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who had also practiced in the Supreme Court as an advocate, commented in his maiden speech to the Rajya Sabha, that the Court's decision to strike down NJAC by invoking the basic structure doctrine, was an unprecedented encroachment on the powers of the parliament by the judiciary, thereby violating the theory of separating powers. [27]
In most common law jurisdictions, the attorney general or attorney-general is the main legal advisor to the government. In some jurisdictions, attorneys general also have executive responsibility for law enforcement, prosecutions or even responsibility for legal affairs generally. In practice, the extent to which the attorney general personally provides legal advice to the government varies between jurisdictions, and even between individual office-holders within the same jurisdiction, often depending on the level and nature of the office-holder's prior legal experience.
Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) (ISO: Bhārat kē Mukhya Nyāyādhīśa) is the highest-ranking officer of the Indian judiciary and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Constitution of India grants power to the President of India to appoint, as recommended by the outgoing chief justice in consultation with other judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution, the next chief justice, who will serve until they reach the age of 65 or are removed by the constitutional process of impeachment.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court in the judicial hierarchy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The Judiciary of Russia interprets and applies the law of Russia. It is defined under the Constitution and law with a hierarchical structure with the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court at the apex. The district courts are the primary criminal trial courts, and the regional courts are the primary appellate courts. The judiciary is governed by the All-Russian Congress of Judges and its Council of Judges, and its management is aided by the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, the Higher Qualification Board of Judges, and the Ministry of Justice, and the various courts' presidents. And although there are many officers of the court, including jurors, the Prosecutor General remains the most powerful component of the Russian judicial system.
The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
The judiciary of Pakistan is the national system of courts that maintains the law and order in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan uses a common law system, which was introduced during the colonial era, influenced by local medieval judicial systems based on religious and cultural practices. The Constitution of Pakistan lays down the fundamentals and working of the Pakistani judiciary.
Hans Raj Khanna was an Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and attempted to uphold civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976. He entered the Indian judiciary in 1952 as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in 1971 where he continued till his resignation in 1977.
The judiciary of India is the system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. India uses a common law system, first introduced by the British East India Company and with influence from other colonial powers and Indian princely states, as well as practices from ancient and medieval times. The Constitution of India provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India.
The judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore work in the Supreme Court and the State Courts to hear and determine disputes between litigants in civil cases and, in criminal matters, to determine the liability of accused persons and their sentences if they are convicted.
Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.
Jagdish Singh Khehar is a former senior advocate and a former judge, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India in 2017. Khehar is the first chief justice from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy verdict. He was succeeded by Justice Dipak Misra.
The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges, which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due to the lack of representation of marginalised communities, i.e., OBCs, SCs and STs, in the Supreme Court and high courts.
All India Judicial Service is a proposed judicial service in India.
The Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2014, formed a National Judicial Appointments Commission. 16 State assemblies out of 29 States including Goa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Gujarat and Telangana ratified the Central Legislation, enabling the President of India to give assent to the bill. The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015.
Pendency of court cases in India is the delay in the disposal of cases (lawsuits) to provide justice to the aggrieved person or organisation by judicial courts at all levels. The judiciary in India works in hierarchy at three levels - federal or supreme court, state or high courts, and district courts. The court cases is categorised into two types - civil and criminal. In 2024, the total number of pending cases of all types and at all levels rose above 51 million or 5.1 crores, including over 180,000 court cases pending for more than 30 years in district and high courts. 4.5 crore out of 5.1 crore cases, i.e more than 87% cases are pending in district courts as of 2024. Government itself is the biggest litigant having 50% of the pending cases being sponsored by the state. Land and property disputes account for the largest set of pending cases. About 66% of all civil cases in India are related to land and property disputes; and 25% of all cases decided by the Supreme Court involve land disputes.
Kalpathy Venkataraman Viswanathan is a judge of the Supreme Court of India.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)