INTRODUCTION – Indian Constitution is a written constitution whereby powers

have been divided between Central & States, and the Principle of separation of power is
inherently enshrined in our constitution. Supreme court declares separation of power as
a basic structure of the constitution, parliament by using her power under art.368 can
not amend the same by way of repeal, alteration etc. All three organs of the government
is independent from each other. No organs of the government can interfere
unnecessarily in the fields provided to others.
Preamble of the Constitution declares that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular,
democratic, & republic country and it also secures for its citizens justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity. Fundamental rights have been mentioned in Part III. To
maintain federal structure of the Constitution of India & protect the pious principle
enshrined in the preamble, independent judiciary is sine qua non. So framers of the
Constitution provided constitutional status to unified judiciary namely, Supreme Court
(Articles 124-147), High Courts (Articles 214- 232) & Subordinate Courts (Articles
233- 237). They also provided several safeguards so that executive and legislative body
cannot unnecessary interfere in the matter of judiciary. For examples, Articles 121&
211, 124,217 etc. clearly try to stop interference of other bodies in the matters of
judiciary.

1. WHY THERE IS NEED FOR FAIR, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL

PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES- Independence of judiciary is
one of the basic features of our constitution as declared by apex court in
keshavananda Bharti case. Judges are sentinel qui vive of our constitution. They
protect our Fundamental Rights from the arbitratrary whims of legislature and
exeecutive by exercising power of judicial review under art. 32 and art.226
respectively. They acts as a guard of the constitution. therefore the appointment of
judges must be in fair, independent and on impartial basis and with minimum
interference of executive and legislature. If the appointment procedure of judges
would not be fair and independent the corruption will crept in judiciary, which is
threat to constitution and there will be no more fundamental rights and human
rights. Thus for maintaining supremacy of constitution, protecting human rights
and individual dignity, the appointment of judges must be in fair and independent
manner and on merits.
According to Article 124, the President shall appoint the Judges of Supreme Court after
consultation with Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court as he thinks fit.
According to Article 217, Judges of High Court shall be appointed by the President
after consultation with Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of High Court and Governor
of the State. In case of Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab,1 Supreme Court
said that after reading Articles 53 and 74, it becomes clear that the President is a
formal or constitutional head while real head is Council of Ministers. We have accepted
Parliamentary form of Government. In Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab,2 Supreme
Court said that wherever the Constitution requires satisfaction of President or Governor
as the case be for the example in Articles 123,213, 311(2) proviso (c), 317, 352(1), 356

1
AIR 1955 SC 549
2
AIR 1974 SC 2129

1
and 360, in those cases, it is not the personal satisfaction of the President or Governor.
It is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers in constitutional sense under the cabinet
system of Government. So from these cases it becomes very clear that actual power is
in the hand of the Council of Ministers rather than President.
Mr. M.C.Setalvad3 has criticized the appointment of Judges on the basis of seniority
and suggested that Judges must be appointed on the basis of merit.
Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala 4 was decided by 7:6 majority.
Majority Opinion – Hon’ble JJ (1) Sikri, C.J.I. (2) Shelat (3) Hegde (4) Grover) (5)
H.R. Khanna (6) Jagmohan Reddy (7) Mukherjee. According to majority opinion, the
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution subject to the basic structure of the
Constitution. It was directly restriction on the power of Parliament & indirectly on
executive.
Minority Opinion – Hon’ble JJ (1) A. N. Ray (2) Palekar (3) Beg (4) Mathew (5)
Dwivedi (6) Chandrachud. According to minority opinion, the power to amend is wide
and unlimited. There is no distinction between essential and unessential feature.
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution by using power given under article
368.
Thereafter executive tried to control the Judiciary. So first time, rule of seniority in
case of appointment of CJI was broken. Hon’ble Justice Ajit Nath Ray was appointed
by superseding three most senior judges namely Hon’ble JJ Shelet, Hegde & Grover.
All the three judges had given judgement against Government in Kesavananda Bharati
case. Term of Hon’ble Justice Ajit Nath Ray is 26 April, 1973-27 January1977. In
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala & A.D.M.Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla, 5
Justice H.R. Khanna had given judgement against Government.
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain,6 Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha
convicted the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi for electoral malpractices and
debarred her from holding any elected post. This lead to the imposition of Emergency
in India on June 25, 1975. In case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narayan, 7 Supreme
Court by 4:1(Minority opinion of H.R. Khanna) majority upheld the validity of
election of Mrs. Indira Gandhi but held that Article 329A (4) is unconstitutional which
was excluding the power of judicial review. The Court said that democracy which
implies free and fair elections, rule of law and Judicial review is basic structure of the
Constitution. In this case Court made balanced between interest of Mrs. Indira Gandhi
and public. It did not totally surrender in favour of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

Hon’ble Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg (28 January 1977-21 Feb 1978) was
appointed by superseding Justice H.R. Khanna on 28 January 1977. In Kesavananda

3
Chairperson of First Law Commission of independent India. This Commission was
established in 1955. This Commission submitted its 14th Report on ‘Reform of Judicial
Administration” on 16Sep.1958.
4
Date of Judgment- On 24 April, 1973,
5
AIR 1976 SC 1207.
6
Date of Judgment- 12 June, 1975, Allahabad High Court ,
7
Date of Judgement 07/11/1975, Supreme Court. There are two cases of the same
name decided in 1975. Another case is Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain which was
decided by Justice Krishna Aiyer on 24/06/1975.It was decided by single bench.

2
Bharati vs. State of Kerala, & A. D. M. Jabalpur vs. Shukla, Justice H.R. Khanna had
given judgement against Government .This was emergency periods (25 June 1975 – 21
March 1977) . During the emergency period Hon’ble Fakhruddin Ali Ahemad was
president. It was the last time when seniority rule was overruled. After Justice
M.H.Beg, Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud (1977-1985) was appointed who was
most senior judge. In case of A. D. M. Jabalpur vs. Shukla, Justice Yeshwant Vishnu
Chandrachud held that during emergency there was no fundamental rights and this case
was in favour of Government.
UNION OF INDIA vs. SANKAL CHAND HIMATLAL SHETH AND
ANOTHER8. Meaning of CONSULTATION under Articles 124(2), 217(1) & 222(1)
was disputed. In this Justice Sankal Chand Seth challenged his transfer from Gujarat
High Court to Andhra Pradesh High Court. Consultation means full and effective that is
active participation of all but it does not mean concurrence. It is open to the President to
arrive at a proper decision of the question. It means President is not bound by the
opinion of Judges of the Court. In this way supremacy of executive was established.
S.P.GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA9. In this case meaning of consultation was
again disputed. Supreme Court accepted the meaning of consultation which was given
in Sankal Chand Seth Case. Supreme Court said that there is only one ground i.e. mala
fide & irrelevant consideration, when decision of government can be challenged.
Justice P. N. Bhagwati suggested for appointment of Judicial Committee. Supremacy
of Executive was again established.
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE ON RECORD ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER
VS. UNION OF INDIA.10
Meaning of “…after consultation with” as used in Articles 124(2), 217(1) & 222(1).
Here consultation means participatory consultative process. Consultation does not
mean concurrence. It was used by judiciary for his favour President is bound by
opinion of The SC. Collegium System was introduced by Justice J.S. Verma &
Supremacy of Judiciary was established.

The President appoints by warrant under his hand and seal Judges of the Supreme Court
(Articles 124(2)) and Judges of the High Courts (Article217(1).

Supreme Court said that Judges of Supreme Court & High Courts can be appointed By
President according to opinion of collegium system. In case of appointment of Judges
of Supreme Court, collegium must be consisted of Chief Justice of India and Two
senior most judges of Supreme Court (1CJI+ 2 Judges of SC= 3 Judges). Initiation of
proposal for appointment of judges of SC must be by CJI. Only for strong reasons and
in exceptional cases opinion of CJI may rejected.

8
Date of Judgment, 19 September, 1977. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judgments
visited on 16/01/2018.
9
AIR 1982 SC 149. Date of Judgment-30 Dec.1981.
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judgments visited on 16/01/2018.
10
Date of Judgment-06 Oct.1993. http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judgments visited
on 16/01/2018.

3
In case of Judges of High Court, collegium must be consisted of Chief Justice of India
and Two senior most judges of S.C (1+ 2= 3). Initiation of proposal for appointment of
judges of HC must be by Chief Justice of the High Court.
JUSTIFICATION OF COLLEGIUM SYSTEM- The Supreme Court has observed,
“The indication is that in the choice of candidate suitable for appointment, the opinion
of the Chief Justice of India should have the greatest weight, the selection should be
made as a result of a participatory consultative process in which the executive should
have power to act as a mere check on the exercise of power by CJI, to achieve the
constitutional purpose. Thus, the executive element in the appointment process is
reduced to the minimum and any political influence is eliminated. It was for this reason
that the word consultation instead of concurrence was used, but that was done merely to
indicate that absolute discretion was not given even to CJI. As an individual”. The
Court further clarified that CJI opinion formed with colleague have primacy.
Special Reference Case 1 of 199811 (IN RE: APPOINTMENT & TRANSFER OF
JUDGES). Reason of dispute was decision of Chief Justice M. M. Punchhi in case of
appointment of Judges. According to Hon’ble Chief Justice, Madan Mohan Punchhi
( 18/01/1998 – 09/10/1998) sole opinion of CJI is binding. The President Mr.
K.R.Narayanan by using the power given under Article 143, refer the matter to
Supreme Court for clarification on 23/07/1998. Consultation with plurality of judges.
Sole individual opinion is not consultation. The Court advised that sole opinion of CJI
without following consultation process is not binding on Government.
Appointment of judges of Supreme Court & Transfer of judges of HCs -
According to the Court, collegium must be constituted of Chief Justice & Four senior
most Judges of SC, (1 +4 =5) in case of appointment of Judges of Supreme Court.
Appointment of judges of HC- In case of appointment of Judges of High Courts,
Collegium is constituted at two stages. First stage is collegium at High Court level and
Supreme Court level. At both level, three judges constitute collegium. At High Court
level, Chief Justice and two senior Judges of High Court (1 +2= 3), and Supreme
Court level, CJI and two other senior most Judges(1 +2= 3).
99TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT & NATIONAL JUDICIAL
APPOINTMENT COMMISSION (NJAC) ACT, 2014. National Judicial
Appointment Commission consisted of Six(6) members- There are three categories of
its Members-(1) Judiciary , CJI& two senior most judges. (2) Executive, one- Union
Law Minister. (3) Expert- Two eminent members selected by Committee consisted of
CJI, Prime M and Leader of Opposition. According to Section 6 of NJAC Act, 2014-
The Commission shall not recommend a person for appointment under this section if
any two members of the Commission do not agree for such recommendation. It is also
called Veto Power.
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE ON RECORD ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER
VS. UNION OF INDIA12, In this case 99th Constitutional Amendment & NJAC Act,
2014 were declared unconstitutional. Reasons -Independence of Judiciary is basic
structure of the Constitution. By this Amendment & Act, executive has taken whole

11
Date of Judgment 28 Oct.1998, http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judgments visited
on 16/01/2018.
12
Date of Judgment 16 Oct. 2015, http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judgments
visited on 16/01/2018.

4
power. In the appointing of eminent person, Executive may appoint even by ignoring of
view of CJI. In the Commission, any two members may use veto.
DISSENTING OPINION- Hon’ble justice JASTI CHELAMESWAR has given
dissenting opinion, he declared NJAC constitutional and referred COLLEGIUM AS
EUPHEMISM OF NEPOTISM.
MEMORANDUM SHOWING THE PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS
APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA – Appointment on the basis of
seniority unless he is unfit. The Union Law Minister seeks recommendation of
outgoing CJI for the appointment of next CJI. After recommendation of outgoing CJI,
Law Minister will put up the recommendation to Prime Minister who will advice the
President in the matter of appointment. As soon as warrant is signed by the President,
Secretary will announce the appointment and issue the necessary notification in the
Gazette of India.
APPOINTMENT OF OTHER JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT- When a
vacancy is expected to arise, CJI will initiate proposal and send its recommendation to
Union Law Minister to fill the Vacancy. Collegium -1 (CJI)+4 (Senior most puisne
judges of SC) = 5 Opinion of CJI should be formed with the collegium of four senior
most judges of SC. One of them must be from that High Court from where a judge of
HC is to be selected. After recommendation of outgoing CJI, Law Minister will put up
the recommendation to Prime Minister who will advice the President in the matter of
appointment. As soon as warrant is signed by the President, Secretary will announce the
appointment and issue the necessary notification in the Gazette of India. .After this
medical examination of Judges is conducted.
Appointment of CJ H C – Process for appointment of Chief Justice of HC shall be
initiated by CJI. CJI will recommend after consultation with two senior most judge of S
C. Then CJI will send proposal of appointment to Union Law Minister. After receiving
the recommendation, The Law Minister will obtain the view of the concerned State
Government. After this Law Minister, will submit the proposal to Prime Minister who
will then advise to President as to appointment.
Appointment of other Judges of H.C. The proposal for appointment shall be initiated
by Chief Justice of the concerned H C. Here collegium is consisted at two places, First
– at the High Court level when name is recommended to Governor. Second – When
Supreme Court consider the name before recommending to the Union Law Minister.
There are Seven Stages of appointment of Judges of High Court –
First stage - 1 (CJ of HC) +2 (two senior most judges of HC = 3. Second stage -CJ of
HC will send recommendation to the concerned State Government & Governor
.Third stage- Governor after the advice of State Council of Ministers, along with own
comment, will send to Union Law Minister. Fourth Stage- Union Law Minister, after
considering the proposal will send the proposal with all consideration to CJI . Fifth
stage 1 (CJI) +2( two senior most judges of SC) = 3. CJI after consultation with two
senior most judge of SC. Will send the proposal to Union Law Minister. Six Stage-
Union Law Minister will refer to Prime Minister who will advise the President as to
appointment. Seventh stage- President shall sign on warrant. Selected person’s name
would be published in Gazette.

5
 Correspondence between Chief Justice of High Court & Chief Minister, & Chief
Minister & Governor shall be in writing.
FLOW CHART OF APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES & APPOINTMENT &
TRANSFER OF JUDGES OF HIGH COURTS
Statute & Leading Supreme Court High Court
Cases
Constitution of (1) President (2) Judges of (1)President (2) Chief Justice of
India,1950 Supreme Court (3) Judges of High Supreme Court (3) Chief justice of
Court , Article 124 High Court (4) Governor of the State.
Article 217.
In Reality President. After observing Governor- After observing Article
Articles 52,53,74 and Ram Jawaya 163 and Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs State
Kapur Vs State of Punjab, of Punjab, Shamsher Singh vs. State
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab of Punjab & S. P . Gupta case, we can
& S. P . Gupta case, we can say that say that real powers of the Governor
real powers of the President are are vested in Council of Ministers. So
vested in Council of Ministers. So indirectly power of Governor is used
indirectly power of President is by Council of ministers.
used by Council of ministers. In IN India, there is Parliamentary form
India, there is Parliamentary form of Government.
of Government.
M.C. Setalvad First Law Commission criticized First Law Commission criticized
(Chairman of First appointment of Judges on basis of appointment of Judges on basis of
Law Commission, seniority, and recommended for seniority, and recommended for
1955-1958, Report, appointment on the basis of merit. appointment on the basis of merit.
14th Reform of Judicial
Administration, 1958.
His Holiness After the judgement of Kesavanand REMARKS- Misuse of Power by
Kesavananda Bharati Case, first time seniority executive
Bharati rule was overruled & Hon’ble
Sripadagalvaru and Justice Ajit Nath Ray was
Ors. v. State of appointed by superseding three
Kerala and Anr. most senior judges namely Hon’ble
(24th April, 1973). JJ Shelet, Hegde & Grover.
Hon’ble Justice Ajit Nath Ray 26
April, 1973-27 January1977 .
Judgement of REMARKS- Misuse of Power by
Kesavananda Bharati Hon’ble J Mirza Hameedullah executive
and Beg(28 January 1977-21 Feb 1978)
A.D.M.Jabalpur vs was appointed by superseding
Shukla,1976 & The Justice H.R. Khanna, 28 January
June 12, 1975 verdict 1977.
of the Allahabad High
Court convicting then It was the last time when seniority
Prime Minister Mrs. rule was overruled. After Justice
Indira Gandhi of M.H.Beg , Justice Yesawant
electoral malpractices Wishnu Chandrachud(1977-1985)
and debarring her from was appointed who was most
holding any elected senior judge.

6
post & imposition of
Emergency in India on
June 25, 1975
Union Of India vs Consultation means full and REMARKS- Supremacy of
Sankal Chand effective that is active Executive was established
Himatlal Sheth And participation of all but it does not
Another on 19 mean concurrence. it is open to the
September, 1977. President to arrive at a proper
Meaning of decision of the question. It means
CONSULTATION President is not bound by the
Articles 124(2), opinion of other.
217(1) & 222(1)
S.P.Gupta vs. Union Do. S.C. said that there is only one REMARKS- Supremacy of
of India,1982 ground i.e. mala fide & irrelevant Executive was established.
consideration, when decision of
government can be challenged.
Justice P. N. Bhagwati suggested
for appointment of judicial
committee.
Supreme Court 1+ 2= 3 1 +2= 3
Advocate on Record (Chief Justice of India + Two {Chief Justice + Two senior most
Association & senior most judges of S.C.). Judges of SC}. Initiation of proposal
Another vs. Union of Initiation of proposal for for appointment of judges of HC
India 06/10/1993. appointment of judges of SC must must be by CJ of the High Court.
Meaning of “…after be by CJI. REMARKS- Collegium System was
consultation with ”. Only for strong reasons and in introduced by Justice J.S. Verma &
Here consultation exceptional cases opinion of CJI Supremacy of Judiciary was
means participatory may rejected. established.
consultative process .
President is bound by
opinion of The SC.
Articles 124(2),
217(1) & 222(1)
In Re Presidential 1 +4 =5 1 +2= 3{Chief Justice + Two senior
Reference Case,1999 {Chief Justice + Four senior most most Judges of SC}
Judges of SC} (Appointment of Judges of High
( Appointment of Judges of Court). REMARKS- Consultation
Supreme Court, To transfer Chief with plurality of judges. Sole
Justice or puisne judge of HC . individual opinion is not
consultation.
99th Constitutional NJA Commission- Six(6) REMARKS- Section 6 of NJAC
Amendment & NJAC members- Three Categories-(1) Act, 2014- The Commission shall not
Act, 2014 Judiciary , CJI& two senior most recommend a person for appointment
judges.(2) Executive, one- Union u/this section if any two members of
Law Minister.(3) Expert- Two the Commission do not agree for
eminent members selected by such recommendation. VETO
Committee consisted of CJI , Prime POWER.
M and Leader of Opposition
Supreme Court Independence of Judiciary is basic REMARKS-99th Constitutional
Advocate on Record structure of the Const. By this Amendment & NJAC Act, 2014

7
Association & Amendment &Act executive has
Another vs. Union taken whole power. In the
of India, 16 Oct. appointing of eminent person,
2015 Executive may appoint even by
ignoring of view of CJI. In
Commission, ant two members
may use veto.
Memorandum Appointment of CJI – Appointment of CJ H C – Process
showing the Appointment on the basis of
procedure for seniority unless he is unfit. The
Appointment of Union Law Minister seeks
judges of SC& HCs recommendation of outgoing CJI
for the appointment of next CJI.
After recommendation of outgoing
CJI, Law Minister will put up the
recommendation to Prime Minister
who will advice the President in the
matter of appointment. As soon as
warrant is signed by the President,
Secretary will announce the
REMARKS appointment and issue the
Collegium necessary notification in the
Supreme Court Gazette of India.
1+4= 5 Appointment of other Judges of
1(CJI+4 (Four Senior S.C. When a vacancy is expected
most judges of SC)= 5 to arise, CJI will initiate proposal
High Court- and send its recommendation to
1+2 =3 Union Law Minister to fill the
(i) 1(Chief Justice of Vacancy. Collegium -1 (CJI)+4
HC) +2( Two senior (Senior most puisne judges of SC)
most Judges of H C) = 5 Opinion of CJI should be
=3, formed with the collegium of four
(ii)1 (CJI +Two senior most judges of SC. One of
senior most judges of them must be from that High Court
SC) 2=3 from where a judge of HC is to be
selected. After recommendation of
outgoing CJI, Law Minister will
put up the recommendation to
Prime Minister who will advice the
President in the matter of
appointment. As soon as warrant is
signed by the President, Secretary
will announce the appointment and
issue the necessary notification in
the Gazette of India. .After this
medical examination of Judges is
conducted.
8
were declared unconstitutional.
for appointment of Chief Justice of
HC shall be initiated by CJI. CJI will
recommend after consultation with
two senior most judge of S C. Then
CJI will send proposal of
appointment to Union Law Minister.
After receiving the recommendation,
The Law Minister will obtain the
view of the concerned State
Government. After this Law
Minister, will submit the proposal to
Prime Minister who will then advise
to President as to appointment.
Appointment of other Judges of
H.C. The proposal for appointment
shall be initiated by Chief Justice of
the concerned H C.
Seven Stage-
(1) 1 (CJ of HC) +2 (two senior most
judges of HC = 3
(2) CJ of HC will send
recommendation to the concerned
state government & Governor.
Third stage- Governor after the
advise of State Council of Ministers,
along with own comment, will send
to Union Law Minister. Fourth
Stage- Union Law Minister , after
considering the proposal will send
the proposal with all consideration to
CJI . Fifth stage 1 (CJI) +2( two
senior most judges of SC) = 3. CJI
after consultation with two senior
most judge of SC. Will send the
proposal to Union Law Minister Six
Stage- Union Law Minister will refer
to Prime Minister who will advise the
President as to appointment. Seventh
stage- President shall sign on
warrant. Selected person’s name
 would be published I Gazette.

Correspondence between C J of High

Court & Chief Minister, & Chief
Minister & Governor shall be in
writing.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURT

Grounds of Difference SUPREME COURT HIGH COURTS
between SC & HCs
Qualifications Art.124 (3)-(a) 5yrs Article 217(2)- (a) 10 yrs held
Judge of HC, or (b) 10yrs, Judicial Office,(b) 10yrs
Advocate of HC or (c) Advocate of H C
Distinguished Jurist.
Appointment 1 +4 =5 (i) 1+2=3, Collegium at High
Court level.(ii) 1 +2= 3
Collegium at Supreme Court
level, & Participation of
Governor ( State Gov.)
Appointment of acting Chief Article-126 Article-223
Justice
Appointment of Additional & No Provision/ No system Article-224 (temporary
Acting judge increasement of workload )
Appointment of ad hoc judges Article 127( for quorum) No Provision/ No system
Attendance of retired judges Article 128 Article-224A
Writ Art.32, only for Art.226, for enforcement of
enforcement of Fundamental Rights &for any
Fundamental Rights other purposes
Appointment By President By President
Oath Art.124(6)President Art.219, Governor

CONCLUSION- To protect and effectuate the pious principles enshrined in preamble such as
sovereign socialist secular democratic republic fraternity and to appreciate the idea of india
as envisioned by our founding fathers, independence of judiciary is undoubtedly sine qua
non but at the same time judiciary plays vital role in almost every matter concerning society.
They decide where to go, what to eat, whom to worship, what consists privacy, what
amounts to misconduct, what consists morality? etc. etc. Some times there decisions
particularly in religious and cultural matters and in matters which is very decisive in
determining the direction of society, is against the interest of larger section of public. To
ensure the proper and efficient exercise of such societal responsibility there should be
some amount of public scrutiny in their appointment. There should be some role of
executive or parliament as representative of public ( though not in direct form). In my
opinion NJAC can be implemented with minor variations such as giving more decision
making power to judges regarding appointment. There must be balance between ensuring
independence of judiciary and judges subjection to public scrutiny.