Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar has reignited the debate over the judicial appointment process in India, advocating for the replacement of the current collegium system. In an exclusive interview, Kumar emphasized the need for a new framework that better aligns with public expectations and ensures judicial independence.
During his tenure as Law Minister, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill was introduced, aiming to overhaul the existing process. However, despite parliamentary approval, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, citing concerns over judicial independence.
Kumar criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the NJAC, questioning the balance between judicial independence and transparency in appointments. He argued that the existing collegium system lacks accountability and does not necessarily lead to the best appointments.
“The doctrine of independence of the judiciary should not overshadow the equally important need for transparency and accountability in the appointment process,” Kumar stated. He referenced the minority judgment by Justice J. Chelameswar during the NJAC verdict, which supported a reformed approach to judicial appointments.
Moreover, Kumar highlighted several high-profile legal challenges to legislation passed by Parliament, such as the Waqf Amendment Act, as examples of the judiciary stepping into political arenas, which he believes should be resolved through democratic processes rather than judicial intervention.
The former minister also touched upon recent controversies involving the judiciary, including the recovery of substantial sums of money from a high court judge’s residence. He urged the Supreme Court to strengthen its in-house mechanisms to address such issues effectively.
Kumar’s comments come at a time when public trust in the judicial system is mixed, and there is growing debate over how judges are appointed. He called for a renewed discussion on judicial reforms, suggesting that a revised constitutional amendment to revisit the NJAC or a similar model might be timely.
As India continues to grapple with the complexities of its judicial system, Kumar’s call for reform sparks a necessary conversation on balancing judicial independence with the need for reform to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
