A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF

HIGH COURT JUDGES

ABSTRACT:

Judiciary is one among the three organs of the government. Judiciary performs the function
of interpreting the laws made by the parliament. Constitution confers the power of judicial
review to the judiciary through which it can review the legislative laws and executive actions.
If a law is such that it is infringing the fundamental rights conferred under part III of the
Constitution the judiciary strikes down it as null and void. Independent judiciary is the salient
feature of our constitution. Therefore, it is imperative for a layman in particular law students
to be acquainted with the working of the judiciary. My research paper mainly focuses on the
appointment and transfer of High Court judges. With respect to appointment this research
paper comprises an overview of constitutional provisions for appointment of High Court
judges, qualifications for appointment, tenure of the judges, appointment for the following
positions: Chief Justice, acting Chief Justice, permanent judges, additional judges and acting
judges, retired judges at sittings of High Court, permanent judges having jurisdiction of more
than one state which can be seen in Punjab-Haryana sharing a common High Court located in
Chandigarh, Goa and Maharashtra having a common High Court which is the High Court of
Bombay. This paper delves into different ways of appointment such as collegium system and
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This paper looks into the evolution of
collegium system and its critical analysis through Supreme Court cases, the issues pertaining
to the present collegium system. NJAC Bill, 2014 -procedure for selection of High Court
judges, composition of the NJAC, functions of the NJAC. This paper seeks to comprehend
the rational behind striking down the NJAC by the Supreme Court. This paper gives an
outlook as to how the judges are appointed in other major countries such as the US, the UK,
France and South Africa. At last, this paper goes with my analysis of appointment of judges
by comparing the two methods. In connection with the transfer of high court judges this paper
discusses about the procedure, reasons behind transfers, its impact on judiciary, challenges
with landmark judgements and conclusion.

1
Constitutional provisions for appointment and transfer of High Court judges

Article 217 of the Indian Constitution provides that the judges are appointed by the President
of India, wherein he/she takes consultation of Chief Justice of India, Governor of the state, in
case of appointment of Chief Justice of concerned High Court. For appointment of other
judges the President takes consultation of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

Article 222 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Transfer of High Court judges from one
High Court to another. The President may transfer the judges after consulting the Chief
Justice of India. When a judge is transferred in this way, he will be entitled to receive
compensation in addition to his salary, which will be decided by Parliament through
legislation. Until that time, the President may establish the compensation through an order.

Glimpse on qualifications of a High Court Judge:

There are few requisites that have to be met for a person to be qualified as a High Court
judge:

 First and foremostly, he/she must be the citizen of India.

 He/she has been a High Court advocate for 10 years or has been served in Judiciary for 10
years.

This gives us an understanding that there is no minimum age clause for serving as a High
Court judge. Also, it has to be noted that the Constitution do not specify any provision for the
appointment of a prominent jurist as a High Court judge.

Tenure of Judges:

 A judge shall hold the office until the age of 62 years. Any discrepancy in this regard shall
be settled by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice of India and the
President’s decision shall prevail.
 He/she can resign the office by way of writing to the President. However,
recommendation of Parliament is required for removal by President.
 When he/she gets appointed to the Supreme Court or gets transferred to another High
Court he/she shall leave the office.

APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF CHIEF JUSTICE:

2
 The government shall appoint the Chief Justice of all High Courts after consulting the
Chief Justice of India.
 Article 217 and Article 95 laid down the procedure to be followed for initial appointments
in other states and Jammu & Kashmir respectively. Article 222 deals with transfer of
Chief Justice from one court to another.
 Promotion to Chief Justice shall be made in accordance with the seniority in their
respective High Courts.
 Chief Justice of India shall usher in for appointment and shall initiate atleast one month
prior to the prophesy of vacancy.
 Chief Justice of India, Union Minister submits their recommendation to the Justice and
Company Affairs who then procure views of the state government, who then submit the
proposal to the Prime Minister.
 The president approves the appointment.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE:

As per Article 223 a High Court Judge may be Acting Chief Justice of a High Court may be
appointed by the President in the following set of conditions:
 When the position is vacant.
 When the existing Chief Justice is either absent or is unable to discharge the duties.

A sitting judge's appointment to a commission or tribunal

A sitting High Court judge may be appointed to serve as the President, Chairman, or Vice-
Chairman of a tribunal or commission under a number of statutes passed by parliament. In the
case of T. Fenn Walter v. Union of India, the whole Supreme Court bench deliberated about
whether a sitting High Court judge lost their status as a judge upon being appointed as the
President of a State Commission. The Apex Court established general criteria for how a
sitting High Court judge should be appointed to a Commission, holding that the judge may
not resign from his position after being appointed to such a position.

 APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL AND ACTING JUDGES

The number of the High Court Judges of the Court will temporarily increase if there is a
temporary increase in the business reason for work arrears. (" The position of additional
judges in the High courts has been steadily growing, despite the fact that Article 224 was
designed to handle the feature's temporary expansion due to arrears and court workload.

3
Consequently, all permanent vacancies in the High Courts are filled from among the extra
Judges, as is now the procedure. While an additional judge does not have the authority to be
nominated to a permanent position or for a further term, he may be appointed to both as long
as there is sufficient work and no backlog of cases. According to a ruling, an additional judge
performs duties that are equivalent to those of a permanent judge, and they have the right to
be given consideration when additional or acting judges are appointed. Furthermore, the
ruling of the Supreme Court has no perpetual validity and must be followed when it comes to
the High Courts.

On October 30, 2010, the Chief Justice of India held an additional hearing to assess the
decisions made by Additional Judges prior to their appointment as permanent judges. A
Judgment Committee would be established by the Chief Justice of the High Court specifically
for this purpose. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,
Dipak Mishra, unanimously decided on October 27, 2017 to abolish the professional
assessment of Additional Judges of High Courts in order to assess their eligibility for
appointment as permanent judges, keeping in mind the tenet that peers should not judge
peers. In accordance with the Collegium's decision, the Chief Justices of the relevant High
Courts will be contacted regarding the decisions made by Additional Judges, and a committee
consisting of two Supreme Court judges—other than consultee judges—nominated by the
Chief Justice of India will review the judgments.

The members of the committee responsible for appointing judges to the High Courts should
comprise the two most senior Supreme Court judges as well as the Chief Justice of India. In
the event that the collegium appointee is found to be ineligible, special review may be
available if the Chief Justice, senior High Court judges, and Supreme Court judges who are
aware of the opinions of that High Court have not been consulted. or when it is expected that
the Chief Justices of India would handle the case in accordance with the decision made in the
Second Judge's case and the judgment issued in response to the Reference.

APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT JUDGES HAVING JURISDICTION OF MORE

THAN ONE STATE:

The Chief Justice shall put forth the motion for designation to this post in such High Courts
and shall consider the advice of the Governor of the State of the concerned High Court.
However, it is different in Punjab & Haryana High Court because they refer it to senior
among the two Governors of such States. Following this, they seek the other Governor’s

4
perspective in addition to the respective Chief Ministers and cooperate with them by way of
writing and submit the same together with the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court to
the Union Law Minister, Justice and Company Affairs to take additional suitable actions.

APPOINTMENT OF RETIRED JUDGES:

Any High Courts retired judges can be appointed by way of request by chief justice of the
concerned High Court to serve as a sitting judge in any High Courts of any States for a
specific time period.

Position following the Constitution's 99th Amendment.

Following the Constitution According to the (Ninety Ninth Amendment) Act of 2014, the
President may appoint any High Court Judge by warrant under his hand and seal, based on
the suggestion of the Judicial Appointments Commission, as mentioned in Article 124A.
Currently, the organization does not need to confer with the Chief Justice of India, the Chief
Justice of the High Court and the Governor of the State, in the event that a judge other than
the Chief Justice is appointed. Position previous to this amendment shall continue since the
Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment has been declared and the preamble has been restored.
To put it another way, the Governor of the State in question and the Chief Justice of India will
consult with the President of India before the Chief Justice of the High Court is nominated.
The Chief Justice of the relevant High Court must be consulted by the President before
appointing a justice other than the Chief Justice.

Collegium System of Appointment of appointment of High Court Judges

 The state government receives recommendations for nominations or elevations to the high
courts from the HC collegium, which consists of the HC Chief Justice and two senior-
most justices.
 With its input, the State Government forwards the names to the Centre.
 The names are provided by the Centre to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) for background
investigations. The Supreme Court Collegium (CJI + 2 Senior-most judges) receives the
IB's report after that.
 After reviewing the IB report, the SC Collegium suggests the persons for nomination to
the Centre.

5
 The appointments may be accepted by the Centre, or it may send the file back to the
Collegium for additional review. The names that the Centre has returned for further
review may be repeated by the Collegium.
 The Centre is required to appoint the applicant if the Collegium repeats a name (but there
is no deadline for doing so).

How did the Collegium System of appointment evolved

All these while we spoke about the role of NJAC for appointment of judges of the Supreme
Court and High Courts. However, there arose a conflict between the Executive and the
Judiciary which resulted in the implementation of collegium system for appointment. It is
imperative for us to know about two prominent cases known as the first judges case and the
second judges case in this context.

It has to be noted that in the year 1969, Justice A. N. Ray was given promotion to the position
of Chief Justice of India. This led to the intense conflict as he superseded three senior judges.

Reviewing of Constitutional provisions with respect to appointment and transfer of judges

was the need of the hour in S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India1 popularly known as the First
judges Case.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the view of the Chief Justice shall not have priority
over the Union Government. Henceforth, the Government had no obligation to decide as per
the view of the constitutional functionaries because while the judiciary was not accountable,
the executive was held accountable.

Nevertheless, the judgement of this case was reversed in the Second Judges Case 2 consisting
of nine judge bench. They ruled that in cases where there is a scope of difference of opinion
with respect to the mechanism of consultation, the opinion of the judiciary shall prevail and
the decision of the executive for appointment shall withstand only if it is in compliance with
the decision of the Chief Justice.

In re Special Reference 1 of 1998

This is another well-known decision that settled a number of matters concerning the
nomination of judges. The primary question that needed to be answered was whether the
Chief Justice of India's single opinion qualified as a legitimate consultation within the

1
1982 (2) SCR 365
2
Supreme Court Advocates on Records v. Union of India, 1993

6
definition of "consultation" as stated in articles 217(1) and 222(1), or if the phrase
"consultation with the Chief Justice of India," which appears in those articles, calls for
consultation with multiple judges at the time the Chief Justice of India forms an opinion.
Several other issues were also settled by the decision, including whether the Indian
government must follow any recommendations given by the Chief Justice of India without
first consulting the law and the consultation procedure. In this instance, it was determined
that while the Chief Justice of India is formulating an opinion, consultation with the majority
of judges is required under the words "consultation with the Chief justice of India" found in
Articles 217(1) and 222(1) of the Indian Constitution. The distinct and individual perspective
of the Chief Justice of India does not meet the requirements for a valid "consultation" as
stated in the aforementioned Articles.

Notably, the Collegium system has taken its breath from the Second Judges Case coupled
with the Third Judges Case3. From past 21 years it has been the law that is followed for
appointment till date. From 1990 (67th Constitutional Amendment Bill) lot of deliberations,
debate cropped up in order to strike down this system and come up with new system. As a
result, the NJAC Act with the 121 st Constitutional Amendment Bill sought the assent of the
President.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill was presented formally in Lok Sabha
on August 11, 2014. The Bill was initiated in concurrence with the Constitutional (121 st
Amendment) Bill, 2014 through which National Judicial Appointments Commission
(hereafter mentioned as NJAC) came into picture. The purpose of the Bill is to lay down the
procedure required to be abided by the NJAC for suggesting individuals for appointment to
the position of Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court (SC) and Chief
Justice and other judges of High Courts (HC) as well as transfers.

The Indian Constitution now has Article 124A, which discusses the NJAC. The Prime
Minister, the Chief Justice of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and two
other eminent individuals were nominated by a committee that included the Chief Justice of
India, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and other members of this commission.

Recommendation to Commission for appointing to the unfilled positions in High Courts

3
In re Special Reference 1 of 1991

7
 Central Government is empowered to advice the NJAC when there is a vacancy in High
Courts.
 Prior to the commencement of the Act, if there exist any vacant positions, same shall be
apprised to the NJAC within 30 days of the Act coming into effect.
 In cases where vacancy is created as a result of fulfilment of tenure, same shall be
communicated to the NJAC well in advance ie., before six months.
 If the vacancy is created as a result of demise or resignation, same shall be intimidated to
the NJAC within a period of thirty days.

Procedure for selection of High Court judges

 Chief justices of HCs

Chief justice of High Courts are appointed by the NJAC based on the seniority among other
judges of the High Courts. Other pre-requisites include calibre, merit and so on as per the
regulations.4

 Appointment of other HC judges

NOMINATIONS AND OBTAINING VIEWS: The Chief Justice of the respective High
Courts shall advice in nominating HC judges. After the Commission nominates names for
appointment of HC judges, the same shall be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the respective
HCs for his views.

The regulations specifies that the Chief Justice of the concerned HC ought to seek advice
from two other senior most judges of the concerned HC and any other judges and advocates.

VIEWS OF THE GOVERNOR AND CM

The NJAC shall, before advising, obtain the opinions of the Governor and the Chief Minister
of the respective state.

VETO POWER OF MEMBERS

In cases where the recommendation of an individual for appointment as a HC judge is not

given consent by any two representatives of the Commission, such recommendation shall not
be taken into consideration by the NJAC.

4
Section 5 of the NJAC Act deals with the procedure for selection of Supreme Court judge and Section 6 of the
Act deals with High Court judges.

8
Considering all the recommendations, the President shall proceed with making an
appointment.

Chief Justice and other High Court judges being transferred

The NJAC is tasked to suggest that Chief Justices and other High Court judges be transferred.
The process must be followed when moving a judge is outlined in the regulations.

Background

The Indian Constitution's Articles 124, 217, and 222 address the nomination and removal of
judges for the Supreme Court and the High Court. Prior to the NJAC taking effect, the
President appointed judges after consulting with the Chief Justice, and the President also
carried out the appointments of other judges and transfers after consulting with
the Chief Justice.

Despite the fact that there is no provision which explicitly speaks about taking seniority as a
ground for appointment, it has been a conventional practice that is followed.

Transfer of judges

The goal of transferring judges has been to enhance justice across the state or the country;
but, in order to do so, the "President" and "Chief Justice" must first give their assent.

Judge transfers in India are subject to a drawn-out procedure, with the "Chief Justice"
ultimately deciding which state and which "High court" to assign a given judge to.
Nevertheless, the "President," who supports the judge's transfer process, assumes
responsibility after the final judgment is made. Nonetheless, a number of judges have
expressed their opinion that there is insufficient clarity regarding the precise parameters and
reasons for the transfer that initiates this process of "high court judges." Additionally, the
current "Collegium" makes the transfer decision after receiving consent from the "Central
Government." A judge also reviews a plethora of constitutional laws and procedures before
transferring the case to a different judge.

Prior to the President transferring a judge from one court to another, a prior discussion with
the "chief justice of India" is necessary. On the other hand, a provision regarding the transfer

9
of judges between high courts is found in Article 222. The Indian "chief justice" has the last
say in whether or not to transfer a judge, notwithstanding the president's authority to do so.
There have been several judge transfer cases in Indian constitutional history. One instance is
the relocation of "Jayant Patel," who, on February 16, 2016, was moved from Gujarat to
Karnataka following a decade of service as the state's "chief justice."

The rationale behind the transfer

One item is more important than the others when it comes to the judges' transfers. Why has
this attempt been made? It has been noted that the public's concerns have been taken into
consideration when deciding whether to transfer judges in order to establish an equitable and
efficient justice system throughout India. Prior to the issuance of transfer orders, a meeting is
scheduled wherein the transfer of a particular judge may be brought up by the "chief justice"
or other members of the collegium. Voting has been done based on this transfer proposal to
select which court that specific judge would be transferred to.

High Court Procedure Judges for Transfers

The "Quasi Federation" and "Cooperative Federation," acting under "Article 222," have made
it feasible to move the justices of the supreme court. However, the transfers of the High Court
judges lack a convincing justification. When the "Union of India" was in charge of the
transfer procedure, there was a decreased frequency of high court judge transfers. However,
since the "Judicial Collegium" got engaged, judges of the high court have frequently dealt
with issues pertaining to transfers.

Based on these concerns, an example is given wherein the Indian government limited the
judiciary's autonomy by transferring in a total of sixteen high court judges on an emergency
basis. Furthermore, a transfer has been tried in the event that a specific judge exhibits a
breakdown in their duties. Transferring would be appropriate once sufficient evidence has
been shown, taking into account the seriousness of the complaints. However, a number of
courts have held the view that the judge should have had a chance to address any concerns in
order to refute the complaint before reaching a final transfer judgment.

Cases are transferred from one judge to another

A high court judge may transfer cases to another high court judge in accordance with
"Criminal Procedure Code, section 526." Furthermore, the "Supreme court," "High court,"
and "District court" have all participated in the administration of "civil laws" and "criminal

10
laws," as have "Civil judge court class I" and "Civil judge court class II." But according to
"section 25," the judge of the "Supreme court" has the authority to transfer any civil or
criminal matter from one judge to another judge in a different court and state after producing
an application for the transfer.

In Union of India v. Sankalchand H. Sheth, a five-judge Supreme Court bench deliberated on

the high court judge transfers case, which is of great significance. The Court ruled that the
President of India and the Chief Justice of India could only confer judges upon each other
after careful deliberation and fruitful conversation, and only in the best interests of the public.

APPOINTED JUDGES IN OTHER MAJOR COUNTRIES

In the United States, the Senate advises and consents to the President's appointment of judges
to the Federal Court. Prior to a Senate vote, the applicants are evaluated by an American Bar
Association committee and examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the US, judges
are appointed for life and are not subject to a specific retirement age based only on their
"good behavior."

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is in charge of supervising the

appointment process for judges in the United Kingdom. There are three judges among the
fifteen members of the JAC, and the remaining twelve are chosen by open competition.

In France, the President appoints judges based on the Higher Council of the Judiciary's
proposal. On the Ministry of Justice's proposal, the judges' three-year appointments are
renewable.

The 23-member Judicial Services Commission (JSC) in South Africa provides advice to the
President about judge nominations.

MY ANALYSIS

There were various flaws in the Collegium appointment system, which claimed to maintain
the judiciary's complete independence from the president. Prominent figures, commissions,
and committees had emphasized the shortcomings of the Collegium system; their concerns
could be summed up as follows:-

 There was no process in place to verify the appointment's reasonableness, and the
Collegium system's process for appointing judges was utterly opaque.5
5
October 21, 2008, "The Hindustan Times" reported, citing Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, the Law Minister at the time,
that the "Collegium system has failed." We believe judges are not being appointed to courts based solely on

11
 The judiciary shown a total lack of responsibility. Under Mr. Verappa Moily's
chairmanship, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission had also observed that
"Perhaps no other country in the world does the judiciary have a final say in its own
appointments." In India, the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court and High
Courts is largely at the discretion of the legislature and executive branches"6.
 The primary cause of the court vacancies and subsequent case backlog was attributed to a
lack of implementation.7
 The executive branch is believed to carry out the task of researching and providing
information regarding the backgrounds of the candidates, something that the judiciary
was believed to be unable to accomplish because even the most senior judges that make
up the collegium would be foreign nationals.8
 The Constitution said that the President would choose people after consulting the judges,
not the other way around, hence the collegium system was largely viewed as
unconstitutional.

The 121st Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act are currently being contested before
the Indian Supreme Court. Initially, the panel of Justices Anil R. Dave, Chelameswar, and
Madan B. Lokur heard the Public Interest Litigations10. The aforementioned bench had, by
an order dated April 7, 2015, referred the cases to a bigger bench due to "substantial
questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India"; nonetheless, no interim
decision regarding the NJAC's operation had been passed.

The actual question that has to be answered is whether the illnesses that the collegium
system was suffering from were truly cured by the establishment of NJAC.

First off, the NJAC resolves the earlier claims of unconstitutionality that arose from the
executive branch's lack of authority relative to the courts. The Union Law Minister, three
judicial officers, and a number of political organizations make up the NJAC.

At last, the President would receive the recommendation. As a result, the NJAC affords the
executive branch far greater authority than the judicial branch. Second, since the court would
now be answerable to the government for its appointments, it is possible to argue that the
issue of judicial accountability has been partially resolved.

merit because of the opaqueness of its appointment and transfer decisions.

6
Page 50, Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Fourth Report, "Ethics in Governance."
7
"The Times of India", September 26, 2014, citing Mr. Sadananda Gowda, the Union Law Minister at the time.
8
Page 59 of the 214th Report of the Indian Law Commission.

12
Other than the aforementioned, it does not outperform the collegium system in any other way.
It doesn't make up for the opaqueness. There would still be ambiguity surrounding the
appointment process and factors. In addition to the recruitment criteria explicitly specified in
the NJAC Act, the phrase "any other suitable criteria" will continue to grant the NJAC
members a sufficient degree of nepotism and favoritism.

Additionally, the NJAC Act stipulates that for a recommendation to be made, at least five of
the group's six members must concur; otherwise, the suggestion cannot be made.

This majority is greater than both the special majority (67%) and the simple majority (50%)
required by the Constitution to pass money measures.

Additionally, the protracted process of ongoing discussions and debates that typically precede
the nation's passage of legislation has not been followed in this instance. The legislation's
hasty passage and claimed lack of jurisprudential applicability have also been
viewed with mistrust.

In addition to these shortcomings of the collegium system, which the NJAC Act does not
address, it has a number of flaws and shortcomings of its own.

There are questions over whether the 121st Amendment and the NJAC Act are valid. The
NJAC Act and its amendment retain virtually all of the executive branch's authority over
judge appointments. Appointing judges has always been linked to the judiciary's
independence, which has often been acknowledged as a fundamental component of the
Constitution.

It can be argued that giving the administration such strong precedence during the selection
process undermines the constitution's fundamental principles of independence.

The NJAC's inclusion of "eminent persons" without any additional knowledge requirements
is another identified weakness. The definition of "eminent persons" is defined in other
statutes, such as the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, as possessing particular qualifications,
experience, and status. The committee made up of the prime minister, the leader of the
opposition, and the chief justice will be able to nominate anyone without regard to their
qualifications or any other elements that would potentially encourage the misuse of the
provision if no such criteria are established.

13
Most notably, neither of the "eminent persons" named in the statute have any clause outlining
the criteria used in their selection. Furthermore, there is no clause indicating the rationale
behind a candidate's suggestion. This may result in members abusing their authority.

After the NJAC Act takes full effect and the regulations and norms pertaining to it are
developed, answers to queries like how well the implementation is going and if the Right to
Information Act, 2005 would apply to the NJAC, may become clear. There is currently no
conclusive response to these questions.

CONCLUSION

Upholding the Constitution and the laws without fear or favor and without being swayed by
political ideology or economic theory is the judiciary's main responsibility.9 In summary,
while the NJAC may provide more judicial accountability than the collegium system, it is
still true that there is a very fine line between judicial responsibility and compromise of the
judiciary's independence.

While no nation in the world allows the court to nominate judges on its own, there are a
number of checks and balances in place to safeguard the judiciary's independence.

International procedures as in the US, the UK, France, Australia can serve as inspiration for
the Indian NJAC Act. A sensible course of action would be to keep the collegium system in
place and make it more open by requesting expressions of interest, publishing the rationale
behind them, including the criteria, and getting executive opinion on things like antecedents.

The NJAC is authorized to formulate different regulations. All that can be hoped for is that
the new legislation will eventually account for these possibilities and increase openness.

The collegium process must to be transparent, accountable, and unbiased in order to maintain
legitimacy.

9
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. UOI, (2003) 4 SCC 399: AIR 2003 SC 2363.

14
REFERENCES/ BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES:

 Indian Constitutional Law 8th edition- M P Jain.

 V. N. Shukla’s Constitution of India Mahendra Pal Singh 13th edition.
 Durga Das Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India 8 th edition 2009 (Articles. 124
to 224A)
 Constitutional Law of India by Dr. Narender Kumar.
 Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J. N. Pandey revised by Dr. Surendra Sahai Srivatsva
59th edition.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

 The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 - PRS Legislative Research.
 India: The National Judicial Appointment Commission: A Critique – Mondaq
 Collegium vs NJAC – Unacademy
 Centre vs. Collegium Row: How the judges are appointed in India, US, UK, and other
countries – India Today
 Appointment and Transfer of Judges in Indian Judiciary – M. S. Sri Sai Kamalini
 From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System – Jstor
 Appointment of Judges of High Court – Collegium System – Indian Polity Notes
 Appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges: need for a fresh look – SCC
Times
 Memorandum of procedure of appointment of High Court Judges
 Qualifications of Judges – Indian Polity Notes.

15