Calls for a National Judicial Policy and NJAC

• 02 Dec 2025

For Prelims: Chief Justice of India, National Judicial Appointments Commission, Collegium system 

For Mains: Appointment process for higher judiciary: Collegium system vs NJAC, judicial policy. 

Source:TH 

Why in News?  

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called for a national judicial policy to reduce divergence across courts, and also stated that the Supreme Court would consider a plea seeking revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which challenges the Collegium system. 

What is the Need for a National Judicial Policy? 

• Resolve Divergent Judgments: Different High Courts and even SC benches often deliver conflicting rulings on key issues (bail, reservations), causing legal uncertainty and encouraging forum shopping (choosing a favourable court to get a more favourable outcome). 
  • A unified policy would promote standards, better use of precedent, and consistent constitutional interpretation would enhance clarity and public trust. 
• Bridge Access-to-Justice Gaps: Massive pendency (over 5 crore cases), long delays, high litigation costs, distance barriers, and language constraints hinder timely, accessible, and affordable justice, especially for marginalised groups. 
  • A National Judicial Policy can reduce barriers created by cost, distance, delays, and linguistic hurdles by promoting uniform standards. 
• Address Structural Gaps: The India Justice Report 2025 shows that about 33% of High Court judges’ posts remain vacant, leaving India with just one High Court judge for every 18.7 lakh people, further burdening an already overstretched judiciary. 
  • District courts face overcrowded courtrooms, inadequate IT systems, lack of fire safety, insufficient furniture, and poor facilities for staff. 
  • A national judicial policy could guide systematic capacity-building across all levels of the judiciary. 
• Standardise Technology & Case Management: Adoption of e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital case management varies widely across courts, leading to unequal access and inconsistent user experience, a common policy ensures uniform, citizen-friendly experience across jurisdictions. 
• Promote Judicial Harmony: A unified framework helps all courts uphold common constitutional values while preserving their independence, creating coherence across the justice system. 

What are the Concerns with a National Judicial Policy? 

• One-Size-Fits-All Problem: States differ widely in caseload, infrastructure, digital readiness, and staffing; a single national template may not suit diverse judicial realities. 
• Risk of Executive Influence: If the policy process involves the executive, it may raise concerns about separation of powers and judicial independence. 
• Implementation Capacity Gaps: Many courts lack staff, funds, digital tools, and infrastructure—making uniform standards difficult to implement nationwide. 
• Resistance from High Courts: High Courts under Articles 214–226, control their own procedures, rosters, and administrative practices. Uniformity may face institutional pushback. 
• Data Gaps & Poor Judicial Statistics: Many states lack real-time case-flow, pendency and performance data, hindering evidence-based policymaking. 

What is the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)? 

• About: NJAC was created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 to replace the Collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.  
  • Under the NJAC system, the President was to appoint judges “recommended” by a six-member commission comprising the CJI as Chairperson, the two senior-most SC judges, the Union Law and Justice Minister, and two eminent persons. 
    • These eminent persons were to be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. 
• Struck Down of NJAC: In 2015 (Fourth Judges Case), the SC struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional, holding that giving the executive and non-judicial members veto power undermined judicial independence, a basic structure feature.  
  • The vague criteria for selecting “eminent persons” risked excessive executive influence, while the possibility of reciprocal obligations threatened impartiality, since the government is the largest litigant.  
  • The SC therefore restored the Collegium system, affirming that judicial primacy in appointments is essential to the basic structure. 

The Collegium vs NJAC Debate

Aspect	Collegium System	NJAC
Primacy	The Judiciary has complete primacy in appointments.	Judicial primacy diluted with executive & eminent persons had equal say.
Transparency	The Collegium operates without published criteria or records, making appointments opaque and raising concerns that judges appointing judges weakens transparency and checks and balances.	NJAC introduces diverse voices and more transparent processes.
Veto Power	No veto and Decisions based on consensus & reiteration rule.	Any 2 members could veto a candidate, including non-judicial members.
Risk Factors	Allegations of nepotism, lack of accountability & secrecy	Risk of political interference; threat to judicial independence
Judicial Independence	Upheld as part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati case (1973))	SC held NJAC compromised independence (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015))
Efficiency	Delays due to government clearance & informal processes	A structured commission could have ensured timelines

Constitutional Basis for Appointment of Judges 

• Article 124: SC judges appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges. 
• Article 217: HC judges appointed by the President in consultation with CJI, Governor, and HC Chief Justice. 
• Ad hoc Judges (Article 127): If quorum of SC judges is not available, CJI (with President’s consent) can request a HC judge to sit in SC. 
• Acting CJI (Article 126): In case of vacancy/absence, senior most available SC judge appointed by the President. 
• Retired Judges (Article 128): With President’s consent, CJI may request a retired SC judge to sit and act as SC judge for a specified period. 
• Appointment Procedures: 
  • CJI: Outgoing CJI recommends a successor, usually by seniority. 
  • SC Judges: CJI initiates the recommendation, consulting Collegium members and the senior-most judge from the candidate’s High Court. Their opinions are recorded in writing.  
    • The Collegium’s recommendation is sent to the Law Minister, then the Prime Minister, who advises the President for the appointment. 
  • HC Chief Justices/Judges: The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the State. 
    • The procedure for appointing puisne Judges is the same except that the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned is also consulted. 

What Measures Can Strengthen the Judiciary in India? 

• Judicial Policy with Flexible Federal Design: A national judicial policy should set broad national standards for consistency while allowing High Courts to adapt procedures based on regional needs, resources, and caseload realities. 
• Institutionalise Case Management & Timelines: Adopt uniform rules for filing, listings, adjournments, and disposal targets to reduce delays across all courts. 
• Fill Vacancies Through Transparent and Time-Bound Processes: Whether through reforms to the Collegium or a future consensual appointments body, ensure predictable, criteria-based and timely judicial appointments. 
• Expand Access to Justice: Invest in regional courts, local language services, legal aid, mobile courts, and ADR mechanisms (especially mediation) to reduce cost and distance barriers. 

Conclusion 

India’s call for a National Judicial Policy signals an urgent need to reduce divergence, modernise courts, and make justice more accessible, predictable, and transparent. As debates around NJAC and the Collegium resurface, the path ahead lies in reforms that strengthen efficiency without compromising judicial independence—the cornerstone of the Constitution’s basic structure. 

Drishti Mains Question:

Examine the arguments for and against reviving the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)  

Q. What was NJAC and how was it constituted? 
NJAC (created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014) was a six-member commission — CJI, two senior SC judges, Law Minister, and two eminent persons — to recommend appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Q. Why did the Supreme Court strike down the NJAC in 2015?
In the Fourth Judges Case (2015) the Court held NJAC unconstitutional, finding that executive and non-judicial veto powers undermined judicial independence, a feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. 

Q. What is the Collegium system? 
The Collegium is a judicially evolved system in which the CJI and senior judges recommend appointments to the higher judiciary. 

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Prelims

Q. Consider the following statements: (2019)

1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.  
2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.  

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?  

(a) 1 only  

(b) 2 only  

(c) Both 1 and 2  

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (b)

---

Mains 

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)