Judicial Accountability and Appointments in India
The discussion around judicial accountability invariably focuses on the process of judicial appointments. The evolution from executive-led appointments to the current collegium system was prompted by fears that executive overreach could compromise the judiciary's independence, legitimacy, and accountability.
Historical Context and Evolution
- Initially, judicial appointments were executed by an executive-led process with non-binding consultation with the judiciary.
- The 1973 supersession of judges by Indira Gandhi's government, appointing Justice A N Ray as CJI, marked a pivotal change, leading to debates on the politicization of appointments.
- The First, Second, and Third Judges' cases (1982, 1993, 1998) introduced the collegium system, granting judges a decisive role in appointments.
- The collegium system, though not mentioned in the Constitution, became dominant through judicial interpretation.
Structure of the Collegium System
- Supreme Court Appointments: Includes CJI and four senior-most judges.
- High Court Appointments: Involves the CJ of the concerned HC and two senior-most judges.
- Recommendations are reviewed by the apex court’s collegium, comprising CJI and two seniormost puisne judges.
Role of the Government of India (GoI)
- Conducts background checks via Intelligence Bureau (IB).
- Can return recommendations seeking clarifications or objections, but must accept if reiterated by the collegium.
Attempts at Reform
- The 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) led to the creation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
- The Fourth Judges' Case (2015) struck down NJAC, citing violation of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Criticism and Challenges
- The collegium system lacks transparency and may lead to institutional inbreeding and nepotism.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 and in-house procedures are considered inadequate for judicial accountability.
- Few judges disclose their assets, and the prerequisite of CJI's sanction before filing a criminal case against a judge creates a protective barrier.
- The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 is hindered by judicial self-regulation.
Recommendations for Improvement
- Institutional reforms such as a national judicial oversight committee or an independent review mechanism.
- Transparent evaluation of justice administration and stakeholder feedback.
- Technological solutions to reduce pendency and fast-track adjudication of criminal cases involving judges.