National Judicial Appointments Commission

Also called: NJAC, Article 124A · Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a six-member constitutional body under Article 124A. The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 created it to recommend people for appointment as the CJI, Supreme Court judges, High Court Chief Justices and High Court judges, and to recommend High Court transfers [1]. It was meant to replace the collegium (a group of the senior-most judges who choose judges). The Supreme Court struck it down on 16 October 2015, and the collegium came back [5].

It matters because it was Parliament's only attempt to end "judges appointing judges". Its failure produced the Fourth Judges case, which made judicial primacy in appointments part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Explanation

Why Parliament created it

• The collegium was made by judges, not by the Constitution.
• The Court created it in the Second Judges case (1993) and refined it in the Third Judges case (1998).
• For the Supreme Court, it is the CJI and the four senior-most judges.

• The word "collegium" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

• Critics called it a "self-appointing body".

• Judges chose judges behind closed doors.

• There were no written criteria, and no reasons were given.

• Parliament's answer (2014): one body that mixed judges, the executive and outsiders. That body was the NJAC.

Composition (Article 124A) [1]

• Chairperson: the CJI, ex officio (the person sits because of the post they hold).
• Two members: the next two senior-most Supreme Court judges, ex officio.
• One member: the Union Minister of Law and Justice, ex officio.
• Two "eminent persons":
• A committee of the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha nominated them. If there was no recognised Leader of Opposition, the leader of the single largest opposition party sat instead.
• At least one had to come from the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities or women.

• They served three years and could not be renominated.

• Vacancy rule: Article 124A(2) said no NJAC decision was invalid just because a seat was empty.

How it was meant to work (NJAC Act, 2014) [2]

1. Vacancy reference (s. 4): the Centre had to refer a vacancy to the NJAC six months before a judge retired. After a death or resignation, the limit was 30 days.
2. Choosing the CJI (s. 5(1)): the NJAC recommends the senior-most SC judge "if he is considered fit". A member whose own name is being discussed stays out of the meeting.
3. SC judges (s. 5(2)): chosen on "ability, merit and any other criteria of suitability", which regulations would set out.

4. HC judges (s. 6): - The HC Chief Justice nominates names after consulting the two senior-most HC judges and eminent advocates. - The NJAC must also take the written views of the Governor and the Chief Minister.

5. The veto (ss. 5 and 6(6)): no name could go forward "if any two members … do not agree".

6. President's role (s. 7): the President could send a name back once. If the NJAC repeated it, the President had to appoint.
7. Convenor (s. 8(3)): the Secretary, Department of Justice, who is a government officer.

Limits built into the design

• Judges did not have a majority. They held three of six votes, so they could not push any name through alone.
• Two outsiders could block the judges. The two eminent persons acting together could veto the CJI and both senior judges.
• Article 124C: Parliament could make a law on the appointment procedure, and the NJAC could set its own selection method by regulations [1].

In the Constitution and practice

• The two laws:
• Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014: received the President's assent on 31 December 2014 [1].
• National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (No. 40 of 2014): also received assent on 31 December 2014 [2].

• Both came into force on 13 April 2015 [3][4].

• How it was passed:

• The amendment changed the Union judiciary (Chapter IV of Part V).
• So under the Article 368(2) proviso it needed a special majority in each House. That means a majority of the total membership, plus two-thirds of members present and voting.

• It also needed ratification by at least half the state legislatures.

• Articles changed [1]:

Article	Change
124(2)	SC judges appointed "on the recommendation of the NJAC". The proviso on consulting the CJI was omitted
124A, 124B, 124C	New: composition; duties (including "ability and integrity" of nominees); procedure law and regulations
127, 128	NJAC handles ad hoc and retired judges, on a reference from the CJI
217(1), 222(1)	HC appointments and transfers made on the NJAC's recommendation
224, 224A	Action taken in consultation with, or through, the NJAC
231(2)(a)	Omitted

• Fourth Judges case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015)
• A five-judge Constitution Bench ruled 4:1. Justice J. Chelameswar was the only dissenting judge.
• It declared both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional and void, and made the old collegium system operative again [5].
• Majority's chain of reasoning:
  • Independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure (core features that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy).
  • Primacy of the judiciary in appointments (the judges' view should win) is part of that independence.
  • The NJAC broke this primacy because judges held only three of six votes.
• On the Law Minister: the seat brought the executive into appointments. The government is the biggest litigant in the courts, so this was a conflict of interest.
• On the eminent persons: no criteria defined "eminent", yet any two of them could veto the judges.

• Dissent: the collegium is opaque, and judges' primacy is not the only way to keep courts independent. Parliament's change should have stood.

• The December 2015 follow-up order:

• The Court admitted the collegium has flaws and asked for public suggestions.
• It told the government to prepare a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the agreed rulebook for appointments, with the CJI.
• The four themes were eligibility criteria, transparency, a secretariat and a complaints mechanism.

• The CJI sent the collegium's inputs by letter dated 13 March 2017. The MoP was still "under finalisation" in 2022 [5].

• The fight continues: in 2022–23, the Union Law Minister and the Vice-President publicly criticised the NJAC verdict. They argued that it ignored a unanimous vote of Parliament.

Don't confuse with

• Collegium: the collegium is made by judges through case law (1993, 1998) and has only judges. The NJAC was made by a constitutional amendment and added the Law Minister and two eminent persons.
• NCRWC's National Judicial Commission (2002): this was a proposal that was never enacted. It had the CJI, two senior-most SC judges, the Law Minister and one eminent person, so judges had a majority. The NJAC had two eminent persons, so judges had no majority.
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): the MoP is a working rulebook agreed between the government and the judiciary. It is not a constitutional body. The 1999 MoP still governs, and the revised draft has been stuck since 2017 [5].
• Second and Third Judges cases (1993, 1998): these created and refined the collegium. The Fourth Judges case (2015) struck down the NJAC and restored the collegium.

Prelims Hooks

• 99th Amendment Act, 2014 inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C. It amended Articles 124, 127, 128, 217, 222, 224 and 224A, and omitted 231(2)(a) [1].
• Trap on dates: both the amendment and the NJAC Act got assent on 31 December 2014 but came into force on 13 April 2015, not in 2014 [3][4].
• Eminent persons: nominated by the PM, CJI and Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha). They served three years, could not be renominated, and one had to be from the SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women.
• Veto: any two members could block a name, including the two eminent persons together. President (s. 7): could return a name once, and a repeated recommendation was binding. Convenor: Secretary, Department of Justice [2].
• Fourth Judges case = SCAORA v. Union of India, 16 October 2015, 4:1. The lone dissent was Justice J. Chelameswar. Ground: judicial primacy is part of the basic structure.
• Trap on passage: the 99th Amendment needed a special majority plus ratification by at least half the state legislatures, because it changed the Union judiciary (Article 368(2) proviso).

Mains Points

• The case for the NJAC:
• It would have ended "judges appointing judges".
• It added outside and executive inputs, as most democracies do.
• It required diversity among the eminent persons.
• Parliament and the state legislatures backed it.

• Collegium diversity remains thin: among 841 HC judges appointed from 2018 to 28 November 2025, only ≈3.8% were SC, ≈2.0% ST and ≈15.3% women [6].

• The case against the NJAC:

• The Law Minister's seat, plus a two-member veto, gave the executive a back door, even though the government is the biggest litigant.
• "Eminent person" was never defined.
• The Court therefore held that it violated the basic structure (SCAORA, 2015).

• Even under the collegium, the government keeps de facto (in practice) power by delaying files and holding back some names from a list ("segregation").

• Way forward: balance independence with accountability

• Finalise the MoP with binding time limits for both the government and the collegium.
• Set up a permanent secretariat and publish eligibility criteria.
• Record reasons for choices, within the limits of CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019).
• Consider an NCRWC-type commission that keeps a judicial majority but adds outside voices.

Related concepts

• Memorandum of Procedure

Read more

• Appointing judges II: the NJAC, the Fourth Judges case and collegium reform