Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the government is reviewing how other countries appoint judges, while insisting there is “no tussle” between the Executive and the Judiciary. He also highlighted the push to strengthen alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to curb rising pendency.
Key Developments
- The Ministry is informally studying appointment models used abroad; no formal committee has been set up yet.
- Meghwal reiterated that consultations between the Executive and the Supreme Court are “good” and that there is no conflict.
- Both Houses of Parliament had earlier passed a Bill to replace the Collegium system with a new body, but the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment on 16 October 2015.
- The Court’s 4:1 verdict held that the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
- With over 5 crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, 25 high courts and lower courts, the government is promoting ADR, including arbitration, to reduce the backlog.
Important Facts
- Appointment review is limited to informal study; no statutory mechanism is in place.
- The Executive may withhold its recommendations if a candidate’s background check is negative.
- The Supreme Court collegium sometimes disagrees with the government’s suggested names.
- The 2015 judgment revived the decades‑old collegium, reaffirming judicial independence.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the dynamics of judge appointments tests knowledge of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Questions on the collegium, NJAC, and the basic structure doctrine frequently appear in GS Paper II. The push for ADR links to governance reforms and the need to reduce pendency, a topic relevant to both Polity and Governance.
Way Forward
Future steps may include a formal committee to compare international appointment models, possible legislative amendments, and stronger ADR infrastructure. Aspirants should monitor any new bills or Supreme Court judgments, as they will shape the balance between executive input and judicial autonomy.