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.