Judicial Appointment Controversy: Revisiting the NJAC and Collegium System

The controversy surrounding the discovery of cash at a Delhi High Court judge's residence has reignited debates on judicial appointments and the NJAC Act, which was deemed unconstitutional. The existing collegium system faces criticism for lacking transparency and promoting nepotism. The NJAC aimed to include executive input but was struck down in 2015.

The discovery of cash at a Delhi High Court judge's residence has once again stirred a heated debate on India's judicial appointment process. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which sought to reform this system, was previously invalidated by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The NJAC Act, passed with nearly unanimous support in both Houses of Parliament, aimed to give the executive branch a greater influence in the appointment of judges. Critics argue that the current collegium system, where judges appoint judges, lacks transparency and breeds nepotism.

The NJAC intended to balance judicial and executive input, comprising senior judges, the law minister, and eminent personalities. Despite its promise, the NJAC was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2015, reinstating the collegium system and reinforcing judicial supremacy in appointments.

(With inputs from agencies.)