Union Law Minister Meghwal on Judge Appointments, No Tussle, and ADR Push

<p><strong>Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal</strong> 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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="Alternative dispute resolution – mechanisms like arbitration and mediation that resolve disputes outside courts, reducing case backlog. (GS2: Polity)">alternative dispute resolution</span> (ADR) to curb rising pendency.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Ministry is informally studying appointment models used abroad; no formal committee has been set up yet.</li> <li>Meghwal reiterated that consultations between the Executive and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court – the apex judicial body in India, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights. (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> are “good” and that there is no conflict.</li> <li>Both Houses of Parliament had earlier passed a Bill to replace the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Collegium system – the existing method where senior judges recommend appointments, reflecting judicial independence. (GS2: Polity)">Collegium system</span> with a new body, but the Supreme Court struck down the <span class="key-term" data-definition="National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) – a proposed statutory body to appoint judges, declared unconstitutional in 2015. (GS2: Polity)">NJAC</span> Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment on <strong>16 October 2015</strong>.</li> <li>The Court’s 4:1 verdict held that the NJAC violated the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Basic structure doctrine – a principle that certain features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendment, protecting judicial independence. (GS2: Polity)">basic structure</span> of the Constitution.</li> <li>With over <strong>5 crore</strong> cases pending across the Supreme Court, 25 high courts and lower courts, the government is promoting ADR, including arbitration, to reduce the backlog.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>Appointment review is limited to informal study; no statutory mechanism is in place.</li> <li>The Executive may withhold its recommendations if a candidate’s background check is negative.</li> <li>The Supreme Court collegium sometimes disagrees with the government’s suggested names.</li> <li>The 2015 judgment revived the decades‑old collegium, reaffirming judicial independence.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the dynamics of judge appointments tests knowledge of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Separation of powers – the constitutional principle that the legislative, executive and judicial branches operate independently to prevent abuse of power. (GS2: Polity)">separation of powers</span> and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial independence – the freedom of courts to decide cases without external pressures, essential for rule of law. (GS2: Polity)">independence of the judiciary</span>. 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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="Pendency – the accumulation of pending cases in courts, indicating inefficiency and delay in the justice delivery system. (GS2: Polity)">pendency</span>, a topic relevant to both Polity and Governance.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>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.</p>