This article on the appointment of Supreme Court Judges in India & necessary judicial reforms is written by P Mohan Chandran, pursuing M.A. in business law from NUJS, Kolkata.

The appointment of Supreme Court judges in India has created quite a furore among the Indian executive and judiciary alike. It has been mired in controversies galore in the wake of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act being struck down and declared unconstitutional by a five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar, after a marathon hearing for 31 days on the issue of the validity of the 99th constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act. As the judicial vacancies in High Courts kept rising, touching about 40%, Justice Khehar delivered the historic verdict that the judicial appointments would not be put on hold and the Collegium process would continue until the Constitution Bench decided on reforms.

COLLEGIUM SYSTEM & ITS ORIGIN

In the Collegium system, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a panel comprising four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments and transfers of judges. The collegium system evolved after three landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, popularly known as the ‘three judges cases’ that comprised the first, second and the third judges cases.

The first judges case was the SP Gupta case. It was decided on December 30, 1981 that the President, with sensible reasons, could reject judges’ names recommended by the CJI. This shifted more power on the executive from the judiciary in the appointments process.

In the second judges’ case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the first judges case by creating a Collegium system. The majority verdict delivered by Justice J.S. Verma in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs Union of India case on October 6, 1993, stated that the CJI should be entrusted with the primary role of appointments of judges. However, the three judges ruling in this case could not reach a consensus on the exact role of the CJI in the process, leading to a lot of confusion in the appointment and transfer of judges for years.

The final judgement in the series, the third judges case (October 28, 1998) made things clearer after the President’s request to the Supreme Court for a clarity. In this case, the Supreme Court came up with nine guidelines that the Collegium system should follow to function effectively. This case established the supremacy of the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges.

WHAT IS NJAC?

NJAC or the National Judicial Appointments Commission is a constitutional body proposed to replace the existing Collegium system of appointing judges. The NJAC proposed a transparent and broad-based process of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were to be selected by the NJAC commission, whose members were drawn from the judiciary, legislature and civil society.

The NJAC was established by amending the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in August 2014. Alongside, the Parliament also passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, to regulate the functions of NJAC. The State legislatures of 16 states ratified both the Bills and the President gave his assent on December 31, 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from April 13, 2015.

Constitution of the NJAC

The NJAC will consist of six people: the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister, and two ‘eminent persons’. These eminent persons would be nominated for a three-year term by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. One eminent person had to be nominated from among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities or women. These eminent persons were not eligible for re-nomination.

Maintaining Judicial Independence

The judicial representatives in the NJAC – the CJI and two senior-most judges – can veto any name proposed for appointment to a judicial post if they disapprove of it. A proposal once vetoed cannot be revived. At the same time, the judges require the support of other members of the commission to get a name through.

Method of Appointment of Judges Prior to NJAC

Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of judges of the higher judiciary. According to these Articles, judges are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the CJI and other judges. The term “consultation” is of great significance here because in 1993, in the Second Judges case, the Supreme Court decided that the CJI must agree to all judicial appointments. This created the Collegium system, wherein the three senior-most Supreme Court judges decided on who would be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

‘FLAWED’ COLLEGIUM SYSTEM – THE ‘CRUX’ OF THE CRISIS

The Central government criticised the Collegium system stating it has created an imperium in imperio, i.e., empire within an empire, within the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bar Association too blamed it for creating a “give-and-take” culture, causing a chasm between the haves and have-nots. The Bar Associated noted that the common man keeps struggling for years to get justice, while politicians and actors get instant relief from courts.

Many eminent jurists, too, time and again, have expressed their reservations about the impartiality of the Collegium system. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice JS Verma, who was a part of the panel of judges who delivered the historical 1993 judgment introducing the collegium system, during the fag end of his life, surprisingly expressed displeasure at the verdict as many shortcomings had crept into the system in the past 20 years since its introduction. Several detractors of NJAC also argued that the new political element would destroy judicial independence.

In 2015, Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, during his arguments in the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), described the Collegium system as “dead and buried”. Rohtagi said that in no other country, except in India, judges were appointed by judges, and he opined that the new system would lead to infusing more accountability and transparency into the judicial system.

According to Justice Chelameswar, who was a keen external observant of the dynamics of the Collegium system for the past five years and also an insider for quite some time, felt that the Collegium, since its constitution, never maintained a record of the minutes of its meetings of the five members and their deliberations. Justice Chelameswar indicated that an absence of record implied that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) could present the Collegium’s opinions to the government as unanimous decisions, thus suppressing any dissent within the body, until there was proof otherwise. The issue of ‘lack of record’ questions the Supreme Court’s creation of the Collegium through its nine-judge bench’s ruling in the Second Judges case in 1993.

The Supreme Court, in the Third Judges case, in its advisory opinion to the President on October 28, 1998 held that “the opinion of all members of the Collegium in respect of each recommendation should be in writing.” The Supreme Court also held that “the ascertainment of the views of the senior-most Supreme Court judges who hail from High Courts from where the persons to be recommended come, must also be in writing.” From this verdict of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court made it mandatory for the Collegium to maintain a record of its proceedings, including the Collegium members’ reasons for recommending or rejecting a candidate considered by them.

If one of the members of the Collegium dissents on the recommendation of a particular judge, then the government can ask the Collegium to reconsider the recommendation on this ground. However, such a recommendation is binding on the government if the Collegium reiterates it, but such reiteration has to be unanimous for the government to accept it. Thus, a dissenting member of the Collegium gets an opportunity to exercise the option to ‘veto’ a recommendation while reconsidering it. In the judgment of the Third Judges case, paragraph 26 clearly states that only a unanimous reiteration entails an appointment. Thus, with the failure of the Collegium to keep a record of its proceedings, the government cannot know whether the original recommendation or a reiteration (when asked to reconsider) was a unanimous one, and it is compelled to rely on the CJI’s word. But, if the CJI’s word were to be contested by the other Collegium members, then complying with CJI’s word would create some issues to the government.

An instance of a negative consequence of not maintaining records came to light in March 2016, when a challenge filed by Lalit Kumar Mishra, a former additional judge of the Orissa High Court, regarding his non-appointment as a permanent judge of the High Court despite his name being recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, was dismissed by the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant. Mishra’s contention was that there was nothing in writing that suggested that the Supreme Court Collegium had reconsidered its recommendation to make him a permanent judge of the High Court. Thus, the absence of record-keeping is the crux of the crisis.

NJAC – THE BONE OF ‘CONTENTION’

The following were some of the issues that were the bone of contention between the government and the judiciary:

• The Memorandum of Procedure for appointing judges was a bone of contention, with the judiciary refusing to accept the government’s proposals.
• Several clauses, including the inclusion of the law minister into NJAC, has been unpalatable by the judiciary.
• The government’s insistence on including its clauses has led to a gridlock, with judicial delay and unfilled vacancies.

The following were the reactions of some of the prominent lawyers from the horse’s mouth on the Supreme Court’s decision:

Abhishek Manu Singhvi: “Having seen the good and later the disturbing operation of both the government appointments and the Collegium system, I think the NJAC should have been given a chance. In my personal view, the judgment is disappointing. Let us hope that there will be real, actual and significant reforms in the content and operation of the Collegium system.” 

M.N. Krishnamani, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association: “I am not happy with the judgment. The power was initially vested with the executive, subject to consultation with the CJI. That could not have been changed by the judiciary.”

Prashant Bhushan: “It is very heartening to note that the Supreme Court has put its foot down firmly on attempts to dilute the independence of the judiciary by allowing the executive government a say in the process of appointing judges. This will mean a revival of the Collegium system, which suffers from problems such as lack of transparency and lack of definite eligibility criteria for selection of judges. For this, one needs an independent full-time body, which is independent of both the judiciary and the government.”

Kapil Sibal: “This is a great success for Indian democracy. This government and its legal advisors should resign. I hail the judgment for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and not allowing any attempts to make inroads into the independence of the judiciary and for throttling the basic freedoms of the citizenry. However, we do request the judiciary to evolve more transparent procedures to ensure the judiciary gives enough confidence to the bar and the people.”

 
THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS

As most of the legal fraternity seemed to be against the flawed collegium system as explained above, the Modi government felt a need to reform it in 2014. However, it faltered because its focus was more on how it could control the appointment of judges through the NJAC rather than on reforms.

A good way to end the executive-judiciary impasse would be to make public any future correspondence on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which will act as a catalyst in infusing transparency in judicial appointments. MoP for collegium appointments, as suggested by the government, aims at having an institutional and transparent process of judicial appointments, wherein more people, instead of a closed group, are involved in the appointment of judges.

The government had proposed some of the following measures to reform the judicial appointment process:

• There should be an age limit set up for appointment of judges.
• Instead of only the Collegium, all judges should vet the list of names of judges to be selected.  
• Chief Ministers, Attorney Generals and Advocate General should have a say in the appointment of judges.
• The criteria of merit, seniority and integrity should be strictly followed while promoting a High Court Chief Justice or a judge to the Supreme Court. Preference should be given to Chief Justices of High Courts, keeping in mind their ‘inter-se seniority’.
• When a senior Chief Justice is overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court, the reasons for it must be recorded in writing. The views of each of the five judges of the Collegium must be made known to the government in writing.
• An institutional mechanism by way of a committee to be constituted to aid the Collegium in the evaluation of suitable prospective judges. Two retired judges of the Supreme Court and one eminent person/jurist should be jointly nominated by the Chief Justice of India and the Government of India, with an aim to create wider consultation for selecting best candidates.
• There should be a secretariat created under the Law Ministry to keep a record of the database of judges, Collegium meetings, maintain records and receive recommendations/complaints concerning the posting of judges. The secretariat would help ensure a wider net for better candidates and the Collegium would also have comparative data for making better decisions.
• The names of the judges whose Intelligence Bureau report is negative to be struck down from the list of names for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.

ELIMINATING NEPOTISM – THE NEED OF THE HOUR

An important step in reforming the Indian judiciary would be to eliminate nepotism. On August 19, 2016, a Hindi news portal, www.indiaspeaksdaily.com, published a detailed article on the kind of nepotism prevailing when a list was sent by the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court for appointment of judges. The article mentions that there are dozens of judges whose sons, daughters and relatives are also judges. The article enlightens us on several aspects of judicial appointments and mentions that many of the names suggested in the list sent by Allahabad High Court do not fulfill many of the eligibility conditions for appointment of judges. The article states that in the year 2000, 8 out of the 13 judges suggested by the Allahabad High Court Collegium were relatives of sitting judges. According to the article, 90 of the 159 names suggested in the list by Allahabad High Court were relatives of different judges. However, the whole list was later dismissed.

Another article titled “Relatives of 9 Judges Appointed Law Officers”, published by the Tribune on July 7, 2013, mentions the trend of judges having relatives practicing in the same courts.

In yet another case of corruption that involved 73 judges, some of the judges enrolled themselves as members of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society and bought plots meant for housing court employees, who were unable to afford accommodation, at huge discounts. Some of the judges included ex-Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, ex-CJI M.N. Venkatachalaiah, and the current Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur too, who bought plots in that society. DNA City had covered this news article on November 23, 2011. In spite of this controversy, both H.L. Dattu and T.S. Thakur became Chief Justices of India.

There have been several cases of corruption and allegations on various judges such as Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice Vijendra Jain, Justice F.I. Rebello, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and many more, who continue either continue to retain their positions or even grow.

It is said that Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s appointment was also a kind of scandal. In 1998, when the NDA government came to power, the question of appointment of Supreme Court judges had come up. The Supreme Court Collegium gave a list that went to the President for appointment through the law ministry. Upon receiving the file, the President sent a name back to the Law minister to be considered for Supreme Court. K.R. Narayanan was the President then and the first Dalit President, too. K.G. Balakrishnan too was a Dalit. When the file was sent to the President again, he sat on the file and when the file was sent for the third time to the President, the President seemed to have insisted and got K.G. Balakrishnan appointed, who had one of the longest terms of over 3 years as the Chief Justice of India. Later, it is alleged that K.G. Balakrishnan also got several other judges appointed to the Supreme Court according to his whims and fancies.

According to some sources, Devi Das Thakur, late father of T.S. Thakur, was a good friend of Girdhari Lal Dogra of Congress, who, in turn, is related to a senior cabinet minister. Ex-CJI A.S. Anand was also Dogra’s friend.

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s son became a judge and Justice Y.G. Chandrachud’s son also became a Supreme Court judge. It is rumored that ex-CJI Ranganath Mishra’s nephew, Justice Dipak Mishra is expected to become the CJI in 2017.

Many judges post-retirement also land up with plum sinecure positions as a quid pro quo for a few favors done to the government. When the law does not allow a judge to practice in the same court after retirement, fearing wielding of undue influence, it seems quite illogical how a judge can be allowed to seek post-retirement benefits. Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur’s father became a Governor, while ex-Chief Justice of India, P. Sathasivam was appointed as the Governor of Kerala. Some of the post-retirement benefits are also given away by way of unlimited perks on esteemed panels, committees and commissions. Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Mishra became a Congress MP after retirement, while many other cushy jobs such as National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Press Council of India (PCI) are reserved for and later awarded to senior judges. For instance, Justice Markandey Katju became the Chairman of the PCI in 2011.

THE WAY AHEAD

It is quite often said that judiciary and politics are strange-bed mates and there seems to be excess of impropriety, corruption and nepotism in India’s judicial system. It is clear that several deals have changed hands, limits have been transgressed and the justice delivery system is crippled. Our judicial appointment system has oscillated between two extremes in the last four decades – from excessive political interference by Indira Gandhi to the arbitrary and opaque Collegium system. It is now high time to strike a middle path. Right thinking citizens must get involved and give an opportunity for the judiciary to be redeemed and entangled from the clutches of political power, so that it can act independently, fearlessly, shunning nepotism forever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES

1. Singh, Gyanant, “How India Can Rethink Appointment of Judges to Supreme Court and High Courts,” www.dailyo.in, September 7, 2016.
2. “Why A Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court is Fighting to Reform the Collegium,” www.thewire.in, September 4, 2016.
3. Shah Prakash, Ajit; Sengupta, Arghya, “The Road to Genuine Reform,” www.thehindu.com, September 2, 2016.
4. Aggarwal, Garima, “Why the Higher Judiciary Appointment Process Needs Urgent Reform,” www.hindupost.in, August 24, 2016.
5. Sharma, Nagendar, “Govt Seeks to Control Judges’ Appointment, Not Reform Judiciary,” www.thequint.com, August 23, 2016.
6. Rajagopal, Krishnadas, “Supreme Court Banks on Collegium to Fill Judicial Vacancies,” www.thehindu.com, November 19, 2015.
7. Rautray, Samanwaya, “Supreme Court Declares National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act Unconstitutional,” www.economictimes.indiatimes.com, October 16, 2015.
8. “National Judicial Appointments Commission: All You Need to Know,” www.hindustantimes.com, October 16, 2015.
9. “NJAC Vs Collegium: The Debate Decoded,” www.thehindu.com, October 16, 2015.
10. “Father, Son and the Holy Court,” www.indialawyers.wordpress.com, October 25, 2014.
11. Sengupta, Arghya, “Reform Judicial Appointments,” www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com, July 1, 2014.