Angelena E Philomene, O P Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the constitutional validity of the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, focusing on their implications for judicial independence in India. The Supreme Court's decision in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2016) is analyzed, particularly regarding the tension between judicial autonomy and executive influence in judicial appointments. The paper argues that these acts threaten the established primacy of the judiciary, a principle upheld in previous landmark cases, by introducing an executive component into the appointment process. It critiques the majority opinion for conflating judicial appointments with judicial independence, thereby undermining the checks and balances essential for a functioning democracy. In contrast, Justice Chalameshwar's dissent highlights the necessity of maintaining a balance of power among government branches, cautioning against absolute authority in any single entity. The conclusion advocates for a re-evaluation of judicial appointment mechanisms to ensure that neither the judiciary nor the executive holds unchecked power, thereby preserving the integrity and independence of the judiciary in contemporary governance.
Comments