How India's National Judicial Appointment Commission Works

What the National Judicial Appointment Commission does

The National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) was a body created by India to recommend judges for the Supreme Court and High Courts. It operated from 2015 to 2017, when the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. Understanding what it was and why it no longer exists matters if you are researching how Indian judicial appointments work or how the system changed.

The NJAC was meant to replace the earlier collegium system, in which senior judges selected new judges with minimal outside input. The commission included the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons chosen by the other four members. The idea was to make appointments more transparent and accountable to the public.

The commission never fully took over the appointment process. It received cases, held hearings, and made recommendations, but its existence was challenged in court almost when ready. In October 2015, the Supreme Court suspended the NJAC pending a legal challenge. In 2017, a five-judge bench ruled that the NJAC violated the Constitution because it gave the executive (the government) too much power over judicial independence.

Key Takeaways

• The NJAC existed from 2015 to 2017 and was designed to recommend judges for India's Supreme Court and High Courts instead of the collegium system.
• The commission included the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two independent members chosen by the other four.
• The Supreme Court suspended the NJAC in 2015 and struck it down entirely in 2017, ruling that it gave the government too much control over judicial selection.
• After the NJAC was abolished, India returned to the collegium system, which remains the method for appointing judges today.

How the NJAC was supposed to work

When the NJAC was active, the process began when a vacancy opened in the Supreme Court or a High Court. The Chief Justice of India would notify the commission. The two eminent persons on the commission were chosen by the other four members through a process that involved the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice.

Once a vacancy was notified, the commission would call for names and information from judges, lawyers, and other sources. Candidates could be interviewed. The commission would then vote on a recommendation and send it to the President of India, who would formally appoint the judge. The entire process was meant to be more open than the collegium system, with written reasons for selections and a chance for public scrutiny.

In practice, the NJAC handled only a handful of cases before it was suspended. The commission recommended judges for a few High Court vacancies, but the legal challenge meant that most of its work was never completed. When the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, those recommendations were abandoned.

Why the Supreme Court rejected the NJAC

The Supreme Court's 2017 decision centered on judicial independence. The court found that including the Law Minister on the commission gave the executive branch too much say in who became a judge. The judges argued that this violated the principle of separation of powers, which keeps the judiciary independent from the government.

The court also noted that the Constitution does not explicitly allow Parliament to create a body like the NJAC to override the collegium system. The collegium system, though not written into the Constitution, had been established by Supreme Court decisions over decades and could not be replaced without a constitutional amendment, the court ruled.

The two eminent persons on the commission raised another concern: they were chosen by judges and the government together, which meant they were not truly independent. The court worried that this structure could still allow political influence over judicial appointments, defeating the purpose of reform.

The collegium system before and after the NJAC

Before the NJAC was created, India used the collegium system, established by Supreme Court decisions in 1993 and refined in 1998. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India and a group of senior judges (usually four or five) met in private to recommend judges. There was no formal role for the government, Parliament, or the public.

The collegium system was criticized for being opaque and prone to favoritism. Judges selected judges based on seniority and personal knowledge, with little public explanation. This lack of transparency was a main reason the government pushed for the NJAC as a replacement.

After the NJAC was struck down, India returned to the collegium system. It remains in place today. The system has been modified slightly over time — for example, the collegium now publishes the names of recommended judges and the reasons for their selection, which is more transparent than before. But the basic structure of senior judges choosing new judges remains unchanged.

How the NJAC differed from the collegium

Feature	Collegium System	NJAC (2015–2017)
Who decides	Senior judges only	Judges, government minister, and two independent members
Government role	None (judges recommend, President appoints)	Law Minister sits on the commission
Transparency	Decisions made in private; reasons now published after selection	Interviews and deliberations were to be more open
Public input	None	Commission could call for information from public sources
Legal basis	Supreme Court decisions, not written in Constitution	Created by constitutional amendment (99th Amendment)

What happened to NJAC cases and recommendations

When the Supreme Court suspended the NJAC in 2015, several cases were pending before the commission. After the court struck down the NJAC in 2017, those cases were abandoned. Judges who had been recommended by the NJAC but not yet appointed were not appointed through that process.

Some of those judges may have later been appointed through the collegium system, but there is no public record showing which ones or when. The NJAC's recommendations were not carried forward as binding or even as suggestions to the collegium. The commission's work was essentially erased from the appointment process.

Attempts to revive or reform judicial appointments since 2017

Since the NJAC was struck down, there have been discussions about reforming the collegium system, but no major changes have been made. The government has not attempted to create another commission like the NJAC, partly because doing so would require another constitutional amendment and would face the same legal challenges.

Some proposals have suggested adding more transparency to the collegium — for example, by publishing more detailed reasons for selections or by creating an oversight body that does not include government ministers. Other ideas have focused on making the collegium more diverse by including judges from different regions and backgrounds. However, none of these proposals have been enacted into law.

The collegium system remains the method for appointing judges in India. Debates about whether it should be reformed or replaced continue, but any major change would require either a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision reversing its 2017 ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the government create the NJAC if the Supreme Court was going to reject it?

The government believed the NJAC was constitutional and would improve the appointment process. The Supreme Court disagreed on both counts. The court's 2017 decision was not predictable when the NJAC was created in 2015; legal challenges often have uncertain outcomes.

Does the NJAC still exist in any form?

No. The Supreme Court abolished the NJAC in 2017, and it has not been revived. India currently uses only the collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Could the NJAC be brought back?

Only through a new constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would have to reverse its 2017 decision, or Parliament would have to amend the Constitution again. Neither has happened, and there is no active movement to do so.

How does the current collegium system work?

The Chief Justice of India and four or five senior judges meet to recommend judges for vacancies. The collegium now publishes the names and reasons for recommendations, which is more transparent than before. The President formally appoints judges based on these recommendations.

What is the difference between the NJAC and the collegium in terms of who has power?

The collegium gives power only to judges. The NJAC gave power to judges, the government (through the Law Minister), and two independent members. The Supreme Court ruled that including the government violated judicial independence.