Nagoya Protocol
The National Judicial Commission Bill 2022 was recently introduced after receiving the majority of voice votes.
Nagoya Protocol
Context -
The National Judicial Commission Bill 2022 was recently introduced after receiving the majority of voice votes.
What are Bill's Standout Features?
Controls the appointment process:
- The National Judicial Commission's process for proposing candidates for appointment as the Chief Justice of India, other Supreme Court judges, Chief Justices and other judges of High Courts would be regulated by the law.
Control the Transfers:
- Additionally, it wants to control their transfers, set judicial standards, ensure that judges are accountable, and develop a reliable and efficient method for looking into individual complaints about the conduct or incompetence of supreme court judges or a high court. It also attempts to control the process for conducting such an inquiry.
Elimination of a Judge:
- It also suggests that the President receive an address from parliament about any proceedings to remove a judge and any issues related to or ancillary to those proceedings.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) -
Towards:-
- The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act of 2014 and the NJAC Act of 2014, enacted by Parliament in August 2014, provided for establishing an independent commission to name judges to the Supreme Court and high courts in place of the collegium system.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the NJAC Act of 2014 and the 99th Constitutional Amendment of 2014 were illegal and invalid in 2015.
NJAC is formed of:
- The ex officio Chairperson is the Chief Justice of India.
- Two ex officio members who are the two most senior Supreme Court judges
- Ex officio member: Union Minister for Law and Justice
- A committee made up of the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister of India, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha will propose two famous members of civil society; one of the notable members must be a member of the SC/ST/OBC/minority or female category.
The following are the differences between the NJAC (Appointment) and the Collegium System:
NJAC:
- The NJAC was to suggest the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the high courts based on seniority, while the SC and HC justices were to be recommended based on competence, merit, and "other criteria stated in the regulations."
- Any two NJAC members might veto a recommendation under the Act if they disagreed.
Collegium System:
- The collegium system, which has been in place for almost three decades, involves a committee of the most senior judges selecting candidates for higher judicial positions.
Why was the NJAC legally challenged?
- The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) filed a suit contesting the clauses of what were then statutes in the early months of 2015.
- Both Acts, according to SCAORA, were "invalid" and "unconstitutional."
- The 99th Amendment, which established the NJAC, was claimed to have removed the "primacy of the collective opinion of the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court of India" since their recommendations could now be "vetoed by the majority of three non-Judge members."
- The fundamental framework of the Constitution, which included the independence of the judiciary in choosing judges of the higher Court, was said to have been "severely" harmed by the Amendment.
- Additionally, it argued that because both Houses of Parliament approved the NJAC Act while Articles 124(2) and 217(1), as initially established, were still in effect and the President had not approved the 99th Amendment, it was "void" and "ultra vires" the Constitution.
The Future Perspectives -
Independence and Accountability in Balance:
- The appointment method, not who makes the appointments (judiciary or Executive), is what matters most.
- For this reason, achieving a balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability is critical, regardless of the Judicial Appointment Commission's (JAC) makeup.
- The Executive should have some appointment input, but the JAC should be structured to maintain judicial independence.
Justice Within the Judiciary:
- Care must be taken to safeguard the institutional mandate of the Court for the administration of justice within the judicial system with equal opportunity and set standards for judge selection.
Rethinking the NJAC's Establishment:
- The NJAC Act may be changed to contain protections that would make it constitutionally valid and reorganized to guarantee that the judiciary retains majority power.
Source: IE
