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.
It asks 2 things — 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 · On 16 October 2015, a five-judge Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 unconstitutional by 4:1 and revived the collegium.
Cover
- Holding: the NJAC (CJI, two seniormost judges, Law Minister, two eminent persons) let any two members veto a name, compromising judicial independence, a basic feature.
- Lineage: the Second (1993) and Third (1998, nine judges) Judges cases had built judicial primacy; Article 50 directs separation of judiciary from executive.
- Merits: keeps the executive, the largest litigant, from a veto; confirms that amendments are subject to basic-structure review.
- Criticism: set aside a measure passed by Parliament and ratified by States; 'judges appointing judges'.
- Collegium's flaws: opacity, no criteria, no secretariat — stressed in Justice Chelameswar's dissent; the NCRWC had itself proposed a five-member National Judicial Commission.
- Way forward: the Court listed the case to improve the collegium's working; a settled Memorandum of Procedure, published criteria and a secretariat.
Close with · Independence and accountability are not rivals; a transparent, criteria-based process with judicial primacy would honour both Article 50 and public trust.
Add value (verified)
- The Court declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void, after refusing to revisit the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges cases.Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, judgment of 16 October 2015 (text on Indian Kanoon) ↗“es [(1993) 4 SCC 441, and (1998) 7 SCC 739, respectively], is rejected. 2. The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 is declared unconstitutional and void. 3. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 , is declared unconstitutional and void.”
- Article 50, a Directive Principle, asks the State to keep the judiciary apart from the executive.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”
- The Court revived the collegium and listed the matter to consider measures for its improved working.Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, judgment of 16 October 2015 (text on Indian Kanoon) ↗“(called the “collegium system”), is declared to be operative. 5. To consider introduction of appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the “collegium system””
- The NCRWC, headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, had recommended a five-member National Judicial Commission.Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, judgment of 16 October 2015 (text on Indian Kanoon) ↗“Mr. Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, who headed the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution, had also recommended a five-Member National Judicial Commission”
- NJAC composition: the CJI, two seniormost judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons chosen by the CJI, PM and Leader of Opposition.Case not closed: Appointment of judges — PRS Legislative Research blog ↗“t in terms of seniority, the law minister and two eminent persons. These two eminent persons will be selected by a collegium consisting of the CJI, the prime minister and the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 222words · Minimalist IAS
On 16 October 2015, a five-judge Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 'unconstitutional and void' by 4:1, reviving the collegium. It pitted independence against accountability.
- 1993: Second Judges case
- 1998: Third Judges case
- 2014: 99th Amendment, NJAC Act
- 2015: NJAC struck down
What the Court held on appointments
- Composition: the NJAC joined the CJI and two seniormost judges with the Law Minister and two eminent persons.
- Veto: any two members could block a name all three judges backed.
- Basic structure: judicial primacy guards independence and the separation that Article 50 directs.
Merits of the judgement
- No executive veto: the government, the largest litigant, cannot choose its judges.
- Limits on amendment: even a ratified amendment yields to basic-structure review.
Criticisms
- Democratic deficit: a law passed by Parliament and ratified by States fell; critics saw 'judges appointing judges'.
- Collegium's flaws: opacity, no fixed criteria, no secretariat; Justice Chelameswar's dissent pressed transparency and accountability.
- Reform consensus ignored: the NCRWC (Venkatachaliah) had itself proposed a five-member National Judicial Commission.
Way forward
- Reformed collegium: the Court itself sought measures for its 'improved working': a settled Memorandum of Procedure, published criteria and a secretariat.
Independence and accountability are not rivals: a transparent, criteria-based process with judicial primacy would honour both Article 50 and public trust.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
