S.C strikes down NJAC act of 2014 It was first mooted by the then Congress party after imposition of emergency. Indira Gandhi openly advocated the need for committed judiciary to protect themselves. The judgment has emphasized Indira`s statement to legitimize their majority verdict by 5 to2, They have also rejected further reference, to an enlarged bench agreeing grudgingly only to improve existing collegiums system, thereby admitting its deficiencies, In strong voice the Act NJAC 2014 is declared as unconstitutional and void . The UPA was not able to legislate on the issue as it lacked confidence, moral authority being continuously rocked by serious scams, corruption .The BJP Govt. with its majority and image construction brought in 99 amendment for NJAC and which was ratified by 20 states The act had broad political consensus, Parliamentary committees several commissions, public debates. It does not appear that with opposition uncertainty in the Parliament, BJP will burn its hands too soon on revival of the issue .It certainly appears to be a confrontation between Judiciary and Executive and remains to be seen how this conflict of primacy wrested by judiciary and converted into its prerogative will be resolved in near future. BJP has called it setback to the supremacy and sovereignty of Parliament and defacto. and de-jure subverted the Constitution to abrogate rights to itself .The opposition tom toms unbridled independence of judiciary fundamental to healthy, vibrant democracy with rider of transparency, accountability and responsibility It also suggests that it should not be viewed narrowly as confrontation between two authorities It is also argued that flaws are germane to any system, but the magnitude is what is to be considered and rectified, Legal luminaries are also divided based on their political affiliations and other hidden interests Nevertheless the constitutional amendment should have been given a fair chance, before shooting it from the hip and in view of legislative support But the learned judges opine that NJAC would be disastrous to independence and delivery system with 2 CJI, one law Minister and eminent person raising doubts about the definition of eminence. The balanced committee of 4 envisaged in NJAC is designed to abuse of power either by judges or politicians Fortunately even in the dissenting verdict, there is no room for ambiguity
Art 217 (1), 124(2)provided appointment by President after consulting CJI,Governor except for CJ and states CJ .The system was in vogue from 1950 till 1981. In 1982 Sc reduced the role of consultation with Judiciary giving primacy o Executive.A seven judge bench held that consultation did no connote concurrence and no primacy to to CJI as per constitution., Several enlightened debates by legal luminaries, legislators followed on distinction between consultation and concurrence. In 1993, in 7 to 2 judgment, primacy shifted to CJI in appointments, transfers against the spirit of framers of Constitution, but committee was now enlarged to 4 members. Late Justice Verma accepted erring as a judge and routed for consultation between judiciary and Executive. It may be noted that in USA Supreme court judges are appointed by the President and ratified by senate One has rarely heard of any bias or partiality In UK, independent committee recommends to P.M , then forwarded for approval of the queen Nelson Lopes Chinchinim