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.
Approach · directive: “critically examine”
What it asks · State what the Court held in 2015, why it did so, and weigh the case for judicial primacy against the criticisms of the collegium and of striking down a constitutional amendment.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- State the Supreme Court's holding on the NJAC Act, 2014 and the 99th Amendment, and its reasoning
- Critically examine it with reference to judicial appointments: merits, criticisms, and a reasoned verdict
Open with · In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (October 2015), a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 by a 4:1 majority.
Cover
- Holding: the NJAC's composition and the executive's role, including the Law Minister and the power of any two members to veto a name, were held to compromise judicial independence, a part of the basic structure.
- Reasoning: primacy of the judiciary in appointments protects separation of powers, while in a six-member body any two members, including non-judicial ones, could veto a name backed by the Chief Justice and the two seniormost judges.
- Support: it upheld judicial review of constitutional amendments and prevented executive influence over appointments.
- Criticism: it sidestepped a measure passed by Parliament and ratified by States, raising the question of judicial overreach and unelected judges choosing themselves.
- Collegium's flaws: opacity, no fixed criteria and no secretariat; the dissent by Justice Chelameswar stressed transparency and accountability.
- After the judgement: improving the collegium, including its Memorandum of Procedure, remained a live issue between the Court and the Centre.
Close with · The judgement protected judicial independence but left the collegium's own deficits unresolved, so a transparent, accountable appointment process is still needed.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 225 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (October 2015), a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 by a 4:1 majority and restored the collegium.
The holding and its reasoning
- The six-member NJAC seated the Law Minister and two eminent persons, and any two members could veto a name backed by the Chief Justice and the two seniormost judges.
- The majority held that this compromised judicial independence, a part of the basic structure, since primacy of the judiciary in appointments is what keeps the separation of powers real.
Merits of the judgement
- It reaffirmed that even a constitutional amendment ratified by the States is open to judicial review on basic-structure grounds.
- It kept the executive, the largest litigant before the courts, from an effective veto over who judges it.
Criticisms
- A measure passed by Parliament and ratified by the States was set aside, feeding the charge of judges choosing judges.
- The collegium's own defects, opacity, no fixed criteria and no secretariat, were left untouched; Justice Chelameswar's dissent pressed precisely this point on transparency and accountability.
- The Memorandum of Procedure meant to reform the collegium remained contested between the Court and the Centre.
The judgement secured independence but not accountability; a transparent, criteria-based process with a secretariat, inside the collegium or a redesigned commission, remains the unfinished task.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.