The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the

99th Constitutional Amendment that established it were declared

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in October 2015 on
several grounds:
Violation of the Basic Structure:
The crux of the Court's argument lay in the principle of the "basic
structure" of the Constitution. This uncodified doctrine, established
in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, essentially safeguards certain
core principles deemed fundamental to the Constitution's character,
including judicial independence.
The Court argued that the NJAC Act fundamentally altered the
existing system of judicial appointments, where the Chief Justice of
India played a central role. This established system, the Court held,
was intricately woven into the "basic structure" by virtue of its role in
ensuring judicial independence.
The majority opinion, written by Justice J.S. Khehar, held that the
NJAC Act significantly altered the existing system of judicial
appointments, which was considered part of the "basic structure" of
the Constitution. This basic structure doctrine prevents Parliament
from making amendments that fundamentally alter the essential
character of the Constitution.
Specifically, the Court found that the NJAC Act undermined the
independence of the judiciary by giving the executive and civil society
a say in the appointment of judges. This, they argued, could
compromise the judiciary's ability to act impartially and fearlessly.
Other Grounds:
Procedural flaws: The Act was passed before the 99th Amendment
received Presidential assent, raising questions about its validity.
Composition of the NJAC: The Court objected to the inclusion of
politicians and civil society representatives in the NJAC, arguing that
this could introduce undesirable influences into the appointment
process.
Lack of safeguards: The Act lacked adequate safeguards to protect
the independence of the judiciary, such as clear criteria for the
removal of judges and mechanisms to ensure transparency in the
appointment process.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Chelameswar was the sole dissenter on the bench, arguing
that the Act did not violate the basic structure and upholding its
constitutionality.
It's important to note that this is a complex legal issue with various
perspectives. While the Supreme Court found the NJAC Act to be
unconstitutional, the debate on judicial appointments and the ideal
balance between judicial independence and accountability continues.
If you'd like to delve deeper into the specific arguments and
reasoning behind the Court's decision, I can provide further
information or point you towards relevant legal resources.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a
proposed body in India that was intended to replace the existing
collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and
High Courts of India. profile picture
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS OF NJAC CASE
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case,
officially known as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association
& Anr. vs. Union of India, ignited a fierce debate around judicial
independence and constitutional principles in India. The Supreme
Court, in a landmark 4:1 majority judgment, declared the NJAC Act
and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which established the
NJAC, as unconstitutional on several critical grounds.
Violation of Basic Structure Doctrine:

The central argument against the NJAC rested on the "basic structure
doctrine," an uncodified principle that safeguards the Constitution's
core tenets from legislative alterations. The Court held that the NJAC,
by introducing non-judicial members like the Law Minister and
eminent persons, undermined the independence of the judiciary, an
essential element of the basic structure. The inclusion of external
actors was seen as compromising judicial autonomy and potentially
exposing judges to undue influence.

Breach of Separation of Powers:

Another crucial concern involved the separation of powers. The Court

reasoned that the NJAC blurred the lines between the judiciary and
the executive, violating this fundamental principle. The veto power
granted to non-judge members in specific appointment scenarios
further amplified concerns about executive interference. This
commingling of powers, the Court argued, jeopardized the delicate
balance between independent branches essential for a healthy
democracy.

Inadequacy of Safeguards:

While the NJAC Act incorporated safeguards like requiring two non-
judge members to agree for a veto, the Court deemed them
insufficient to protect judicial independence. Concerns surrounded
the selection process for eminent persons, raising questions about
their potential vulnerability to political biases. Critics argued that
these safeguards were inadequate to prevent the executive from
exerting undue influence on judicial appointments.

Lack of Transparency and Accountability:

Despite aiming for increased transparency, the Court found the NJAC
Act lacking in crucial aspects. The absence of provisions for public
hearings and detailed justifications for decisions shrouded the
selection process in opacity. Additionally, the lack of transparency in
selecting eminent persons fueled concerns about accountability,
raising questions about their qualifications and potential conflicts of
interest.

Dissenting Opinion and Continuing Debate:

While the majority opinion outlined these primary grounds for

striking down the NJAC, it's important to acknowledge the dissenting
voice of Justice Chelameswar. He argued in favor of upholding the
NJAC's constitutionality, highlighting potential shortcomings in the
collegium system and advocating for the NJAC as a means for reform.
This dissent reflects the complexity of the issue and the ongoing
debate surrounding judicial appointments in India.

The NJAC case stands as a pivotal moment in India's constitutional

history, underscoring the paramount importance of safeguarding
judicial independence while navigating the intricacies of reforming
the judicial appointment system. It serves as a reminder of the
ongoing need to strike a delicate balance between ensuring an
independent judiciary and implementing meaningful reforms for a
more robust and accountable system.

The NJAC was envisaged to be a six-member body with the following

composition:

 Chief Justice of India (Chairperson, ex officio)

 Two other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court next to the
Chief Justice of India (ex officio)
 The Union Minister of Law and Justice (ex officio)
Two eminent persons from civil society, one of whom would be
nominated from amongst Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Classes, minorities or women (nominated by a committee
consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and
the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha)
The NJAC was never implemented, as it was struck down by the
Supreme Court of India in October 2015 on the grounds that it
violated the independence of the judiciary.
The debate over the composition of the NJAC is a complex one, with
strong arguments on both sides. Proponents of the NJAC argue that it
would bring greater transparency and accountability to the
appointment process, while opponents argue that it would give the
government too much influence over the judiciary. Advantages and
Disadvantages of NJAC (99th Constitutional Amendment Act)
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, which proposed the
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), was a highly
controversial issue in India. Here's a breakdown of its potential
advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages:

Transparency and Accountability: Supporters argued that the NJAC

would bring transparency to the appointment process, which was
previously shrouded in secrecy under the collegium system. Public
hearings and debates on nominees could ensure scrutiny and
accountability.
Elimination of Bias: By involving eminent personalities from civil
society, the NJAC aimed to eliminate potential biases present in the
collegium system where judges appoint judges.
Representation: Including eminent personalities from diverse
backgrounds aimed to ensure wider representation and prevent
dominance of a particular ideology in the judiciary.
Efficiency: The NJAC proposed a time-bound process for
appointments, potentially addressing delays and backlog in the
existing system.
Disadvantages:

Judicial Independence: Critics argued that the NJAC would

compromise the independence of the judiciary by giving the
government and politicians undue influence in judicial appointments.
Unintended Consequences: Concerns existed about the qualifications
and potential political affiliations of eminent personalities, impacting
the impartiality of the selection process.
Overstepping Constitutional Bounds: The Supreme Court found the
NJAC unconstitutional, highlighting that it violated the "basic
structure" of the Constitution, which guarantees judicial
independence.
Exclusion of Lawyers: The exclusion of lawyers from the commission
raised concerns about their representation and potential
marginalization in the selection process.
It's important to note that these are just some of the key arguments
for and against the NJAC. The debate remains complex, with strong
opinions on both sides.

Additional Information:

The collegium system, currently used for judicial appointments, also

faces its own criticisms for lacking transparency and accountability.
The Supreme Court, while striking down the NJAC, proposed reforms
to the collegium system, which are yet to be fully implemented.
“The right to know is not a fundamental right but at best washed in a
dhobi-ghat.’