Rethinking judicial appointments: Collegium vs. Commission

Prianka Rao - October 16, 2015

Earlier today, the Supreme Court struck down the two Acts that created an independent body for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. One of the Acts amended the Constitution to replace the method of appointment of judges by a collegium system with that of an independent commission, called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The composition of the NJAC would include: (i) the Chief Justice of India (Chairperson) (ii) two other senior most judges of the Supreme Court, (iii) the Union Law Minister, and (iv) two eminent persons to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition of the Lok Sabha. The other Act laid down the processes in relation to such appointments. Both Acts were passed by Parliament in August 2014, and received Presidential assent in December 2014. Following this, a batch of petitions that had been filed in Supreme Court challenging the two Bills on grounds of unconstitutionality, was referred to a five judge bench. It was contended that the presence of executive members in the NJAC violated the independence of the judiciary. In its judgement today, the Court held that the executive involvement in appointment of judges impinges upon the independence of the judiciary. This violates the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. In this context, we examine the proposals around the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. Appointment of judges before the introduction of the NJAC The method of appointment of the Chief Justice of India, SC and HC judges was laid down in the Constitution.[i] The Constitution stated that the President shall make these appointments after consulting with the Chief Justice of India and other SC and HC judges as he considers necessary. Between the years 1982-1999, the issue of method of appointment of judges was examined and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. Since then, a collegium, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and 4 other senior most SC judges, made recommendations for persons to be appointed as SC and HC judges, to the President.[ii] Recommendations of various bodies for setting up an independent appointments commission Over the decades, several high level Commissions have examined this method of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary. They have suggested that an independent body be set up to make recommendations for such appointments. However, they differed in the representation of the judiciary, legislature and executive in making such appointments. These are summarised below. Table 1: Comparison of various recommendations on the composition of a proposed appointments body

Recommendatory Body	Suggested composition
2^nd Administrative Reforms Commission (2007)	Judiciary : CJI; [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive : Vice-President (Chairperson), PM, Law Minister, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leaders of Opposition from both Houses of Parliament. Other: No representative.
National Advisory Council (2005)	Judiciary: CJI; [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive: Vice-President (Chairman), PM (or nominee), Law Minister, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition from both Houses of Parliament. Other: No representative.
NCRWC (2002)	Judiciary :CJI (Chairman), two senior most SC judges Executive: Union Law Minister Legislature: No representative Other: one eminent person
Law Commission (1987)	Judiciary : CJI (Chairman), three senior most SC judges, immediate predecessor of the CJI, three senior most CJs of HCs, [For HC judges: Chief Justice of the relevant High Court of that state] Executive: Law Minister, Attorney General of India, [For HC judges: Includes CM of the state] Legislature: No representative Other: One Law academic

Sources: 121^st Report of the Law Commission, 1987; Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002; A Consultation Paper on Superior Judiciary, NCRWC, 2001; A National Judicial Commission-Report for discussion in the National Advisory Council, 2005; Fourth Report of the 2^nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), ‘Ethics in Governance’, 2007; PRS. It may be noted that the Law Commission, in its 2008 and 2009 reports, suggested that Government should seek a reconsideration of the judgments in the Three Judges cases. In the alternative, Parliament should pass a law restoring the primacy of the CJI, while ensuring that the executive played a role in making judicial appointments. Appointments process in different countries Internationally, there are varied methods for making appointments of judges to the higher judiciary. The method of appointment of judges to the highest court, in some jurisdictions, is outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Appointment of judges to the highest court in different jurisdictions

Country	Method of Appointment to the highest court	Who is involved in making the appointments
UK	SC judges are appointed by a five-person selection commission.	It consists of the SC President, his deputy, and one member each appointed by the JACs of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.[iii] (The JACs comprise lay persons, members of the judiciary and the Bar and make appointments of judges of lower courts.)
Canada	Appointments are made by the Governor in Council.[iv]	A selection panel comprising five MPs (from the government and the opposition) reviews list of nominees and submits 3 names to the Prime Minister.[v]
USA	Appointments are made by the President.	Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate.[vi]
Germany	Appointments are made by election.	Half the members of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the executive and half by the legislature.[vii]
France	Appointments are made by the President.	President receives proposals for appointments from Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature.[viii]

Sources: Constitutional Reform Act, 2005; Canada Supreme Court Act, 1985; Constitution of the United States of America; Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany; Constitution of France; PRS. In delivering its judgment that strikes down the setting up of an NJAC, the Court has stated that it would schedule hearings from November 3, 2015 regarding ways in which the collegium system can be strengthened.

[i] Article 124, Constitution of India (Prior to 2015 Amendments)

[ii] S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1982, SC 149; S.C. Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268; In re: Special Reference, AIR 1999 SC 1.

[iii]. Schedule 8, Constitutional Reform Act, 2005.

[iv]. Section 4(2), Supreme Court Act (RSC, 1985).

[v]. Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the retirement of Justice Morris Fish, http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2013/04/23/statement-prime-minister-canada-retirement-justice-morris-fish.

[vi]. Article II, Section 2, The Constitution of the United States of America.

[vii]. Article 94 (1), Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.

[viii] Article 65, Constitution of France, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf.

Constitution

Explainer: Mechanisms to investigate charges against a Supreme Court judge

Roshni Sinha - April 25, 2019

This week, an in-house inquiry committee was constituted to consider a complaint against the current Chief Justice of India. Over the years, three mechanisms have evolved to investigate cases of misconduct, including cases of sexual harassment, misbehaviour or incapacity against judges. In this blog, we summarise the procedure for investigating such charges against judges of the Supreme Court.

In-house procedure (1999): The Supreme Court has an in-house process to deal with allegations against a judge relating to the discharge of his judicial function, or with regard to his conduct or behaviour outside court.
Sexual harassment guidelines: In 2013, Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Subsequently, the Supreme Court framed regulations for protection of women against sexual harassment in the Supreme Court. Under the regulations, the CJI is required to constitute a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC). The GSICC will include 7-13 members including: (i) one or two judges of the Supreme Court, and (ii) up to two outside members (having experience in social justice, women empowerment, gender justice, among others) to be nominated by the CJI. The Regulations require the majority of the members of GSICC to be women. As of 2018, the GSICC has received 13 complaints, out of which 10 have been disposed of.
Removal for proven misbehaviour or incapacity: Charges of misconduct may also be investigated in the context of proceedings for removal of a judge. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India provides that a judge can be removed only by Parliament on the basis of a motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Till date, no judge of the higher judiciary has been impeached under this process.

Table 1: Process for investigation of charges against a Supreme Court judge

	In-house Procedure of Supreme Court	2013 SC Sexual Harassment Regulation	Removal Proceedings
Who may file a complaint	Complaint of misconduct may be filed by any person.	Written complaint of sexual harassment by a woman.	Signed notice by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha on charges of misbehaviour or incapacity by a judge.
Persons to whom complaint must be filed	CJI or President of India	GSICC	Presiding Officer of the relevant House of Parliament
Preliminary Inquiry	The CJI is required to determine whether the complaint is either frivolous or serious. If the complaint is frivolous or relates to a pending case, no further action will be taken. If the CJI finds that the complaint involves serious misconduct or impropriety, he will seek the response of the concerned Judge. Based on the response and supporting materials, if the CJI finds that the complaint needs a deeper probe, he will constitute an inquiry committee.	If the GSICC is satisfied that the complaint is genuine, it will constitute a three-member Internal Sub-Committee to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.	If the notice is in order, the Presiding Officer will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint.
Composition of Inquiry Committee	The Committee will comprise three judges including a Judge of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of other High Courts.	The Committee will comprise members of the GSICC or persons nominated by the GSICC, with majority members being a woman and an outside member.	The committee will comprise a Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
Time limit for submission of inquiry report	No specific time limit provided.	To be completed within 90 days of the constitution of the Internal Sub-Committee, and forwarded to the GSICC within 10 days of completion.	To be submitted to the presiding officer within 90 days.
Findings of the Committee	The Committee may report to the CJI that: 1. there is no substance in the allegation made, or, 2. there is substance in the allegations but the misconduct is not of such serious nature as to warrant removal, or, 3. the misconduct is serious enough to initiate removal proceedings against the judge.	If the committee concludes that the allegation has been proved, it will submit its report to the GSICC to pass appropriate orders within 45 days. If more than two thirds of the GSICC members differ from the conclusion of the Committee, it will, after hearing the complainant and the accused, record its reasons for differing and pass orders.	After concluding its investigation, the Committee will submit its report to the presiding officer, who will lay the report before the relevant House.
Action taken upon submission of report	If the finding is under category (2) above, the CJI may call and advise the Judge accordingly and direct that the report be placed on record. If the finding is under category (3) above, the CJI may ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI may decide to not allocate any judicial work to the judge concerned. Further, the CJI may inform the President of India and the Prime Minister of his reasons for the action taken and forward a copy of the inquiry report to them.	The GSICC has the power to: (i) to pass an order of admonition (reprimand), which may also be published in the court precinct, or (ii) pass an order to prohibit the accused from harassing or communicating with the complainant, or (iii) pass any other order to end the sexual harassment faced by the complainant. GSICC may also recommend to the CJI to pass orders against the accused, including: (i) prohibiting entry of the accused into the Supreme Court for up to a year, or (ii) filing a criminal complaint before the concerned disciplinary authority governing the accused.	If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated. The motion is required to be adopted by each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.
Process for Appeals	No specific provision.	Any aggrieved person may make a representation to the CJI to set aside/modify the orders passed by the GSICC. The CJI also has the power to issue any other orders in order to secure justice to the victim.	No specific provision.

Sources: Report of the Committee on In-House Procedure, December 1999, Supreme Court of India; Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013; Article 124(4), Constitution of India; Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 read with the Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969; PRS.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Rethinking judicial appointments: Collegium vs. Commission

Explainer: Mechanisms to investigate charges against a Supreme Court judge

Recent Posts