Open Access Research Article
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN HIGHER JUDICIARY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TOPICAL COLLEGIUM SYSTEM IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
APPOINTMENT
OF JUDGES IN HIGHER JUDICIARY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TOPICAL COLLEGIUM
SYSTEM IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- D.S. SELVAKUMAR
Research
Scholar
IIULER
GOA.
ABSTRACT
This paper
makes an analysis of appointment of judges in higher Judiciary in accordance
with the articles of the Indian constitution and of the existing Collegium
system of appointment and the mode of appointment of Judges in the higher
Judiciary of some other countries and the Tug of War between the Executive and
the higher Judiciary in recent times. This paper also provides an insight what
may happen if the executives are given a say in the appointment of Judges in
Higher Judiciary.
KEY WORDS
Constitution,
Higher Judiciary, NJAC, Executive, Tug of war
INTRODUCTION
Constitution lays down the
appointment of Judges for the Supreme Court and High Court Judges in Art. 124[1]
and Art. 217[2]. Both
the articles expressly note the involvement of executive authority, the
president, “after Consultation” with Judges, shall appoint Judges to the
Supreme Court and the High Court. Political involvement in judicial appointment
dipped a controversy of the executive overreaching their authority to shadow Judiciary
and ink their control as an active puppeteer. The interpretation of the
articles and the constitutional intention behind executive reach gave birth to
the Collegium Systems, which later came to be interpreted and debated in four
judge cases: S. P Gupta v. President of India[3]
establishing and reiterating the primacy power of the president over Chief
Justice of India and Judges recommendation; reigning for over 12 years until
the 9-bench decision in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union
of India[4]
that overturned S.P. Gupta and conferred the primacy to Chief Justice of India
with a stress on the Judicial nature of the appointment, advising the executive
to take a step back.
The unanimous 1998 decision in the
third Judges case, set the foundation for Collegium – a collegium of collective
opinions and consultation of Chief Justice with four senior Judges in SC
appointments and two Senior Judges in HC appointments, evolving the principle
of Judicial Independence. As desirable it was, the backlash from executive and
affiliated authorities echoed volumes on compliance with the Indian
constitution and the underestimation of power of executive in multitude. The
99th amendment[5]
attempted to replace Collegium system with NJAC, the NJAC Act was passed by the
Parliament in 2014, constituting a commission with increased governmental role
in appointment of Judges. The outcry of independence of judiciary, struck down
the NJAC in the Fourth Judges case in 2015, upholding the primacy of Judiciary
and reinstating the separation of power – the basic structure of the
constitution. This welcomed widespread criticisms on lack of transparency,
accountability and objectivity. Without optimum transparency set forth, it
became difficult to ascertain the credibility and legitimacy of the
appointments.
Transparency does not entirely
reflect the opinion of public appointments but is demonstrated by an evolved
process of selection of judges including the coverage of criteria such as
gender, casteism, power and influence. Meritorious selection and appointment of
judiciary must have a transparent process with accountability and rationale.
The SC set a Memorandum of Procedure to the government as a form of agreement
with guidelines, that to date remains stuck on the involvement of government in
certain sections of judicial appointments. This research studies and examines
the intricacies of the composition of the collegium and NJAC, its working
structure and functions. The evaluation of both the appointment systems in light
of the debatable criticisms in conjunction with the constitution and the
intention of the founding fathers of the constitution will be carried through
doctrinal research with case laws, news and current events to propose a set of
guidelines and propound a system that consonants with the Constitution and its
basic structure.
OBJECTIVE
To analyse
whether the existing Collegium system is opt for appointing Judges in the Higher
Judiciary in India considering the Tug of War between the Executive and
Judiciary in recent times.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
This article follows the doctrinal
research methodology that includes the analysis and interpretation of the
secondary legal sources like books, case laws, legal history, Government
documents and secondary sources such as articles, news and current events,
Newspapers.
METHODS OF APPOINTMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES[6]
|
Country
|
Courts
|
Number
Of
Judges/Courts
|
Appointment
of Judges
|
|
Canada
|
Supreme
court of Canada
|
Chief Justice and
eight Pusine Judges
|
Appointed by the Governor General
on the advice of the National cabinet
|
|
|
Federal Court of Canada
|
12 Judges
|
Appointed by the Governor General
on the advice of the National Cabinet
|
|
USA
|
One Supreme Court
|
Chief Justice and Eight Associated
Judges
|
Appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate
|
|
|
1 Federal court of Appeal and 12
Regional Circuit Courts of Appeal
|
179
|
Appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate
|
|
Germany
|
Federal Constitutional Court
|
Consists of 2 Senates each subdivided
into 3 Chambers each with a Chairman and 8 members
|
Elected by the Two Chambers of
Parliament who votes by 2/3 majority.
|
|
|
Federal Supreme Court
|
As regulated by the Federal
Legislation
|
Selected by the Joint Election
Committee(JEC)
|
|
Australia
|
High Court and such other Judges
|
Chief Justice and minimum of two
other Justices.
|
Appointed by the Governor-General
in Council
|
|
|
State Supreme Courts
|
As many as States in the Country
|
Appointed from the persons
practicing legal profession
|
|
South Africa
|
Constitutional
Courts
|
Chief Justice and Deputy Chief
Justice
|
Appointed
by the
President after consulting JSC
(Judicial
Service
Commission)
and
leaders
of parties
represented
in the
National Assembly
|
|
|
Constitutional
Courts
|
Other Nine Judges
|
Appointed
by the
President after consulting leaders of
parties represented in the National Assembly
|
|
|
Supreme Court of Appeal
|
President and Deputy President
|
Appointed
by the
President after consulting JSC
|
|
|
High Court
|
As determined by Parliament
|
Appointed
by the
President after consulting JSC
|
|
Japan
|
Supreme Court
|
Chief Justice and 14 other Justices
|
The Chief Justice is appointed by
the Emperor while other Judges are appointed by the Cabinet and attested by
the Emperor
|
|
|
High Courts
|
Differs from one High Court to
another
|
The Judges are appointed by the
Cabinet frm the list of persons nominated by the Supreme Court.
|
|
Sri Lanka
|
Supreme Court
|
Chief Justice and not less than Six
and not more than ten other Judges
|
Appointment of Chief and every
other Judges is done by President by warrant under his hand with the
nomination of Parliamentary Council.
|
|
|
Court of Appeal
|
President
of
Court of
Appeal
and not
less
than six
and not
more than
eleven
other
judges
|
Appointment of Chief and every
other Judges is done by President by warrant under his hand with the
nomination of Parliamentary Council
|
|
|
High Courts
|
Not less
than ten and not more than Forty
Judges
|
Appointment of Chief and every
other Judges is done by President by warrant under his hand on the
recommendation of Judicial Service Commission and such recommendation is made
after consultation with Attorney-General
|
|
Bangladesh
|
Supreme
Court comprising of Appellate Division and High Court Division
|
Chief Justice and other number of
Judges as President deems it necessary to appointment. As of January
2024,there are 8 Justices in Appellate Division and 89 Justices in High Court
Division
|
Chief Justice is appointed by
President alone whereas other Judges are appointed by President after
consultation with Chief Justice on Prime Minister’s advice.
|
|
Switzerland
|
Federal Supreme Court
|
38 Federal Judges and 19 Deputy
Judges
|
They are proposed by Judicial
Committee and They are proposed by Judicial Committee and elected by the
United Federal Assembly(National Council and Council of States)
|
|
|
Federal Criminal Court
|
18 Judges
|
They are elected by the United
Federal Assembly(National Council and Council of States)
|
|
|
Federal Administrative Court
|
72 Judges
|
They are elected by the United
Federal Assembly(National Council and Council of States)
|
|
|
Federal Patent Court
|
2 Full time Judges, 25 Technically
qualified part time Judges and 11 Judicially qualified part time Judges.
|
They are elected by the United
Federal Assembly(National Council and Council of States)
|
|
China
|
Supreme People’s Court
|
President, Vice President, Chief
Judges of divisions and Judges
|
Appointed by the Standing Committee
of the National People’s Congress(NPC) at the suggestion of the President of
the Supreme People’s Court
|
|
|
Higher People’s Court
|
President, Vice President, Chief
Judges of divisions, Associate Chief Judges of divisions.
|
Appointed by the Standing Committee
of the People’s Congress at the
suggestion of the President of the Local People’s Court
|
|
Russian Federation
|
Constitutional Court under
Article125
|
19 Judges
|
Appointed by the Federal Council
i.e. nomination shall be made by the President
then approved by the Upper House of
Federal Assembly
|
|
|
Supreme Court under Article 126
|
3 Chambers , namely Judicial Chamber on
Civil Cases, Judicial Chamber on Criminal Cases and Military Chamber
|
Appointed by the Federal Council
i.e. nomination shall be made by the President then approved by the Upper
House of Federal Assembly
|
|
|
Supreme Arbitration Court
|
As prescribed under the
Constitution
|
Appointed by the Federal Council
|
|
Nepal
|
Supreme Court
|
Chief Justice and 20 other Judges
|
Chief Justice shall be appointed by
the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council whereas the
other Judges of Supreme Court shall be appointed on the recommendation of
Judicial Council(JC)
|
|
|
High Court
|
In every Province
|
Chief Justice of Supreme Court
shall appoint Chief Justice of High Court on recommendation of Judicial
Council.
|
|
Pakistan
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
Chief Justice and 16 other Judges
|
Appointed by the President of
Pakistan on the recommendation of Judicial Commission of Pakistan
|
|
|
Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan
|
8 Muslim Judges
|
Appointed by the President of
Pakistan on the recommendation of Judicial Commission of Pakistan
|
|
|
High Court
|
5 High Courts in Five Provinces
|
Appointed by the President of
Pakistan on the recommendation of Judicial Commission of Pakistan
|
METHODS OF APPOINTMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES[7]
|
Austria
|
14
|
8 members on proposal by the
federal government, 3–3 members on proposal by the two houses of the
parliament ? the federal president appoints them
|
|
Bulgaria
|
12
|
3 members appointed by the head of
state, 3 by the parliament, 3 by the two supreme courts jointly
|
|
Czech Republic
|
15
|
the head of state appoints them
with the consent of the Senate
|
|
Germany
|
16
|
8-8 members elected by the two
houses of the federal parliament (out of whom 3-3 members have to be former
judges of one of the federal supreme courts)
|
|
Hungary
|
15
|
ad hoc parliamentary committee
composed of representatives of all parliamentary parties reflecting the
parliamentary strength of the parties ? two-thirds majority voting
|
|
Italy
|
15
|
5 members elected by the two houses
of the parliament in joint session, 5 members appointed by the head of state,
5 members appointed by the three supreme courts (2 by the Court of Cassation,
2 by the Council of the State, 1 by the Court of Auditors)
|
|
Latvia
|
7
|
3 members on proposal by at least
10 members of the parliament, 2 members on proposal by the government, 2
members on proposal by the supreme court ? the parliament appoints them
|
|
Poland
|
15
|
on proposal by 50 members of
parliament or the Presidium ? the lower house of the parliament (Sejm) elects
them by absolute majority
|
|
Portugal
|
13
|
10 members elected by the
parliament, 3 members co-opted by the constitutional court itself
|
|
Romania
|
9
|
3–3 members elected by the two
houses of the parliament, 3 members appointed by the head of state
|
|
Spain
|
12
|
4–4 members on proposal by the two
houses of the parliament (by three-fifth majority), 2 members on proposal by
the government, 2 members on proposal by the General Council of the Judiciary
? the King appoints them
|
|
Slovakia
|
13
|
the President of the Republic on
proposal of the parliament
|
TOPICAL ARGUMENTS
I myself am servant of law and
constitution, says CJI DY Chandrachud on reforming Supreme Court’s Collegium system.
Lawyer asks Chief Justice of India to reform Supreme Court’s Collegium system
and system of designating advocates as seniors. CJI responds as a servant of
the law and the Constitution, following the position laid down by law.
Nedumpara urges CJI to bring reforms to the Collegium system and senior
designation process. He has filed pleas against the existing judge’s selection mechanism
and senior designation.[8]
Chief Justice of India D Y
Chandrachud said here on Friday that there is a constant tussle about who will
get ultimate control over appointment of judges even as vacancies arise and
appointments are kept pending for a long period of time. “Because you do not
get judges, when you get judges, vacancies arise which are kept pending for a
long period of time… and then there is this constant tussle about who will get
ultimate control over appointment of judges.” CJI Chandrachud said. He said the
members of the bar and bench (lawyers and judges) in Maharashtra should not
forget the favourable conditions in which they work as opposed to the rest of
the country as there is a culture of governance here. “There is a culture of governance
where the government successfully has left the judiciary alone. They do not
tinker with the work the judges do. They accept outcomes that are favourable.
they accept outcomes that are unfavourable because that is the culture of
Maharashtra.” CJI Chandrachud said.[9]
Allahabad High Court’s Chief Justice Pritinker
Diwaker has made an explosive allegation against the collegiums in his
retirement speech, saying he was transferred out of the Chhattisgarh High Court
in 2018 to harass him. On march 31, 2019, I was elevated to the Bench. I
discharged my duties as a judge in Chhattisgarh High Court till October 2018 to
the satisfaction of one and all, and particularly to the satisfaction of my own
inner being. Now, a sudden turn of events descended upon me when then Chief
Justice of India Dipak Misra showered on me some extra affection for reasons
still not known tome which entailed my transfer to Allahabad High court, where
I assumed my office on October 3, 2018” he was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.
“My transfer order seemed to have been issued with an ill intention to harass
me. However, as fortune would have it, the bane turned into aboon for me
because I received immeasurable support and cooperation from my fellow judges
as well as from the members of the Bar,” he added. Earlier this year, Justice
Diwaker was recommended for the post of the Chief Justice of Allahabad High
Court by the Collegium, currently led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
He took oath as Allahabad HC’s Chief Justice on March 6, 2023. “I am highly
thankful to the present Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who rectified the
injustice done to me, “Diwaker Said.[10]
It was no surprise that soon after retirement,
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul termed the collegiums system of selecting constitutional
court judges as not the best mechanism even though he had vigorously and
successfully pushed many names as part of the Supreme Court and high Court
Collegiums. Judiciary insiders said his apparent disillusionment probably
stemmed from his failure to push through the appointment of an advocate as judge
of J&K HC, elevation of a Madhya Pradesh HC judge to SC, and supersession
of the most senior Delhi HC judge for appointment as SC judge or as an HC Chief
Justice.9
There has to be workable trust
between the Centre and the judiciary over the appointment of judges to the
higher judiciary continuous, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the government sitting
over the collegium’s recommendations and selectively picking and choosing names
and appointing them was ‘Troubling” the judiciary, and emphasized that there
has to be “workable trust” between the two. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan
Kaul and Suchanshu Dhulia, which had last month lashed out at the government
for not notifying all the recommendations of the collegiums, expressed concern over
its selective approach towards names endorsed by the collegiums, called it
“Troublesome” and reiterated that it affected the seniority of judges. The
bench also flagged the centre not clearing names which were reiterated by the collegiums
as well as its recommendation for transfer of HC judges. The court appreciated
the Centre for clearing some names and appointing them HC judges but asked why
14 names were left out. Though the bench refrained from passing directions as
attorney general R Venkataramani sought 10 days time, it asked him to show
progress on the next date of hearing. “Pendency of transfer matters is an issue
of great concern as it is being selectively done… Once these people are already
appointed as judges, where they perform their judicial duties should not be of
concern to the govt. We hope that a situation does not come to pass where this court
or the collegiums has to take any unpalatable decision – SC.[11]
The bench said, “We have expressed our
concern to the AG over lack of progress since the last date. Pendency of transfer
matters is an issue of great concern as it is being selectively done. The AG
submits that the issue is being taken up by him with the government. Once these
people are appointed as judges, where they perform their judicial duties should
not be of concern to the government. We hope that a situation does not come
where this court or the collegiums has to take any un palatable decision.[12]
“There are 14 recommendations pending with the government to which there have
been no response. In recommendations made recently, selective appointments have
been made. This is also a matter of concern. If some appointments are made,
while others are not, the seniority is disturbed. This is hardly conducive to
persuading successful lawyers to join the bench,” the court added. The bench
admitted that the tussle between the two organs of the state had been going on
since the 1950s but emphasised that there Ami has to be “workable trust”
between the two for smooth functioning the system. The bench also said the
Centre should not reject the names of those lawyers who had some political connection
with opposition parties, having served as law officers in opposition governed
states.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra
Pradhan on Thursday addressed the reports of NEET-UG paper leak in Bihar,
saying the government won't imperil the future of thousands of aspirants
because of a few "isolated incidents".[13]
Addressing the media, Pradhan said,
"I want to assure everyone that the government is committed to protecting
students’ rights. We will not compromise with transparency. We have received
inputs from the Bihar government about NEET examination. Patna Police is
investigating the matter and they will soon send a detailed report to the Government
of India.[14]
Union education minister Dharmendra
Pradhan, on Thursday, said during a press briefing that the University Grants
Commission–National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) examination paper was leaked on
dark net, leading to its cancellation. “Soon after it was clear that the
UGC-NET question paper on Dark Net matches the original question paper of
UGC-NET, we decided to cancel the examination,” he said. "We take
responsibility, have to rectify system," he added.[15]
CONCLUSION
Since 1993, India followed the Collegium
system of appointment of Judges in higher judiciary. With the present condition
of political and other factors it is good to have the collegium system for the
appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. The appointment of judges in
higher judiciary in other countries have involvement of executives in the
selection process. However, it may not be suitable for our country one of the
prime reason being almost 46% of the elected members have criminal records and
cases still pending against them. Involving them in Judiciary is similar to
infecting the truth, justice, democracy and independence of Judiciary. Apart
from this, the nation recently witnessed the process of selecting one of the
election commission members. It is not also advisable to have All India
Judicial Service Exam to select District Judges who will be elevated to higher
judiciary in short period than others since at present holding of national
level exams lost integrity as witnessed in NEET and UGC –NET. While the existing
collegium system of Appointment of judges in higher judiciary functions with
all integrity intact, it is advisable to reflect some transparency to refute
any involvement of executives and legislature.
REFERENCES
Articles:
1.
Abhishek
Mishra, “Collegium and Appointment of Judges at supreme Court” - Has Supreme
Court become Imperium in Imperio, Vol. 9, RMLNLUJ (2017).
2.
K.K
Venugopal,”The Need For National Commissions on Judicial Appointments and Performances”,Journal
of the Bar Association of India,Vol 34(May 2006)
3.
Indira
Jaisingh, “National Judicial Judicial Appointments Commission: A Critique”,
Economic & Political Weekly,Vol 49.No31(Aug 2014)
4.
Meera
Matathew, “Judicial Independence at Stake: Analysis of Indian Judicial
Appointments”,Indian Bar Review,Vol.41,No.4(Oct-Nov 2014)
5.
P.Puneeth,
“Collegium System: Suggestions for Reforms”, Vivekananda Journal of Research, Vol.7
(Dec 2010)
6.
Varagiri
Prasada Rao, “Are the Present Procedures For Appointment of Judges To High
Courts And Supreme Court In Accordance With The Provisions Of Constitution? If
Not, What is the Alternative? ”, Andhra Law Times,Vol.5 (Oct 2015)
7.
Rajat
Garg and Nishkarsh Garg , “Seperation of Powers is a Myth:In reference to
National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC),Vol.1(2020)
8.
Prof.
Upendra Baxi , “Demosprudence And Socially Responsible/Response-Able
Criticism:The NJAC Decision And Beyond”,Vol.9,No.153(July-Dec2016)
Books:
1.
Gopal
Sankara Narayanan The Constitution Of India, Eastern Book Company Lucknow(2023)
2.
Basu
Durga Das Introduction to the Constitution of India (Gurgaon:Lexis Nexis(,2013)
3.
Arghya
Sengupta & Ritwika Sharma, “ Appointment of Judges to the Supreme
Court of India – Transparency,
Accountability and Independence”, Oxford University Press.(2018)
4.
Kaleeswaram
Raj , “Rethinking Judicial Reforms – Reflections on Indian Legal
System”, Universal Law Publishing.(2017)
5.
Prof.
(Dr.) Ratan Singh & Dr. Shinkha Dhiman, “Appointment, Independence &
Accountability of Judges.” - (From Collegium – To NJAC – To Collegium)
Allahabad Law Agency.Haryana (2021)
News Papers:
1. Justice Chalameswar opts out of
Collegium, The Hindu, September 2,(2016)
2. CJI DY Chandrachud on reforming
Supreme Court’s Collegium system, Times of India 12.10.2023.
3. Allahabad High Court’s Chief
JusticePritinker Diwaker has made an explosive allegation against the
collegiums, Hindustan Times, 11.23.2023.
4. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul termed the
collegiums system of selecting constitutional court judges as not the best
mechanism, Times of India 12.03.2023 Economic Times 20.06.2024
5. Amit
Anand Choudary, There has to be workable trust between government and
Judiciary, says SC, Times of India (Nov, 8, 2023)
6. Rishabh
Sharma, Center on NEET Paper leak: Isolated incidents shouldn’t affect future
of aspirants, India Today (June 20, 2024).
7. NEET
won’t be cancelled: Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, Star of Mysore (June 23,
2024).
8. Barkha
Muthur, ‘UGC-NET paper leaked on dark net’: Education minister on exam row,
Business Standard (June 20, 2024).
9.
Economic Times 20.06.2024
10. Times
of India, 12.10.2023
11. Times
of India, 12.09.2023, Mumbai, Dec 8 (PTI)
12. Hindustan
Times, 11.23.2023
13. Times
of India, 12.30.2023
14. The
Times of India, 08.11.2023
15. Economic
Times 20.06.2024
16. Business standard 20.06.2024
[1] Art. 124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme
Court:
(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall
be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after
consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High
Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and
shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty five years:
Provided that in
the case of appointment of a Judge other than the chief Justice, the chief
Justice of India shall always be consulted.
[2] 217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court
(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by
warrant under his hand and seal on the recommendation of the National Judicial
Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A, and shall hold office, in
the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in article 22 until he attains the age
of sixty-two years: Provided that--(a)a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,
resign his office;(b)a
Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in
clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;(c)the office of a Judge shall be
vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme
Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court
within the territory of India.
(2) A
person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless
he is a citizen of India and--(a)has for at least ten years held a
judicial office in the territory of India; or(b)has for at least ten years been an
advocate of a High Court ' or of two or more such courts in succession;
[3] See, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87,
para 31.
[4] See, Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441.
[5] Ministry of Law and Justice, Stand
of Government on Appointment of Judges, March 2022. “The Constitution (Ninety –
Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 w.e.f. 13.04.2015. However,
both the Acts were challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide
Judgment dated 16.10.2015 declared both the Acts as unconstitutional and void.
The Collegium system as existing prior to the enforcement of the Constitution
(Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 was declared to be operative.”
[6] Borrowed from the Book,”Appointment, Independence
& Accountability of Judges.” - (From Collegium – To NJAC – To Collegium)
Prof. (Dr.) Ratan Singh & Dr. Shinkha Dhiman, , First edition 2022 Published
by Allahabad Law Agency. Haryana
[7] The table is borrowed from “Appointment of
Constitutional Judges in a Comparative Perspective - With a Proposal for a New
Model for Hungary Acta Juridica Hungarica, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 5-23 (2013)”
available below. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229184
[8] CJI DY Chandrachud on reforming
Supreme Court’s Collegium system, Times of India 12.10.2023.
[9] Id.
[10] Allahabad High Court’s Chief
Justice Pritinker Diwaker has made an explosive allegation against the
collegiums, Hindustan Times, 11.23.2023.
[11] Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul termed
the collegiums system of selecting constitutional court judges as not the best
mechanism, Times of India (March 12, 2023)
[12] Amit Anand Choudary, There has to
be workable trust between government and Judiciary, says SC, Times of India
(Nov, 8, 2023)
[13] Rishabh Sharma, Center on NEET
Paper leak: Isolated incidents shouldn’t affect future of aspirants, India
Today (June 20, 2024).
[14] NEET won’t be cancelled: Minister
Dharmendra Pradhan, Star of Mysore (June 23, 2024).
[15] Barkha Muthur, ‘UGC-NET paper
leaked on dark net’: Education minister on exam row, Business Standard (June
20, 2024).
Article Information
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN HIGHER JUDICIARY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TOPICAL COLLEGIUM SYSTEM IN INDIA
Authors: D.S. SELVAKUMAR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/07/04
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.