The Supreme Court has expressed serious concerns regarding the ongoing talent drain in the judiciary, particularly highlighting over 70 pending recommendations for High Court judgeships. This situation has raised alarms within the legal community, as the delays could potentially undermine the effectiveness of the judicial system.
Further complicating the issue is the Centre's practice of segregating names of candidates without providing clear justifications. This lack of transparency not only contributes to delays but also raises questions about potential biases, thereby eroding the integrity of the judiciary.
Experts from the legal fraternity have criticized the government's lackadaisical approach towards these appointments. They have been vocal in demanding prompt resolutions to prevent further erosion of public trust in the judiciary. In response, Justice Kaul has committed to following up on these cases every ten days and has set a deadline of October 9 for the Attorney General to address these concerns.
To understand the current situation, it is essential to look at Article 124 of the Indian Constitution. This article originally stipulated that the President of India appoints the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court in consultation with other judges. A similar consultative process is also mandated for High Court judges under Article 217.
The landmark S.P. Gupta vs Union of India case in 1982 redefined the consultative process. The Supreme Court ruled that the term "consultation" did not equate to "concurrence," thereby allowing the executive greater control over judicial appointments.
In a significant turn of events in 1993, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India case established the Collegium system. This ruling indicated that "consultation" must mean "concurrence," thereby granting the judiciary a central role in its own appointments.
The Supreme Court's 1998 advisory opinion further elaborated the Collegium system, emphasizing the collective responsibility of the Chief Justice of India and four other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court in judicial appointments.
In 2014, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was introduced to replace the Collegium system through a constitutional amendment. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional, reaffirming the Collegium system and the judiciary's autonomy in its appointments.
The interplay of these significant milestones reflects the evolving nature of the judicial appointment process in India. This ongoing debate raises crucial questions about the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.
Q1. What are the main concerns raised by the Supreme Court regarding judicial appointments?
Answer: The Supreme Court has raised concerns about over 70 pending recommendations for High Court judgeships, highlighting delays and issues related to name segregation, which could undermine judicial integrity.
Q2. What does Article 124 of the Indian Constitution entail?
Answer: Article 124 mandates that the President appoints the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges in consultation with other judges, ensuring a collaborative approach to judicial appointments.
Q3. How did the Collegium system evolve in India?
Answer: The Collegium system evolved through landmark cases, notably the Second Judges Case in 1993, which emphasized judiciary control over its own appointments by interpreting "consultation" as "concurrence."
Q4. What was the outcome of the NJAC judgment in 2015?
Answer: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, reverting to the Collegium system and reaffirming the judiciary's autonomy in making appointments to maintain its independence.
Q5. Why is name segregation a concern in judicial appointments?
Answer: Name segregation without clear reasons can introduce bias and lead to delays in appointments, which can undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary.
Question 1: What is the main issue highlighted by the Supreme Court regarding judicial appointments?
A) Excessive appointments
B) Delayed recommendations
C) Biased selections
D) Overqualified candidates
Correct Answer: B
Question 2: Which article of the Indian Constitution relates to the appointment of Supreme Court judges?
A) Article 124
B) Article 217
C) Article 32
D) Article 14
Correct Answer: A
Question 3: What did the Second Judges Case establish regarding judicial appointments?
A) Executive control
B) Collegium system
C) Direct Presidential appointments
D) Judicial review
Correct Answer: B
Question 4: What was the outcome of the NJAC judgment by the Supreme Court in 2015?
A) NJAC was upheld
B) NJAC was declared unconstitutional
C) NJAC was modified
D) NJAC was expanded
Correct Answer: B
Question 5: What does "name segregation" refer to in the context of judicial appointments?
A) Grouping judges by seniority
B) Separating candidates without clear reasons
C) Appointing judges based on popularity
D) Identifying candidates by qualifications
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
