National Judicial Policy

The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, has called for the formulation of a National Judicial Policy to reduce divergence in judicial functioning across courts. He also stated that the Supreme Court would consider a plea seeking the revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which directly challenges the existing Collegium system of judicial appointments.

Need for a National Judicial Policy

1. Resolving Divergent Judgments

Different High Courts and even different benches of the Supreme Court often deliver conflicting judgments on similar legal issues such as bail, reservations, and service matters. This creates legal uncertainty and encourages forum shopping, where litigants approach courts perceived to be more favourable.
A National Judicial Policy could promote uniform standards, better use of precedent, and consistent constitutional interpretation, thereby enhancing clarity, predictability, and public trust in the judiciary.

2. Bridging Access-to-Justice Gaps

India’s judiciary faces massive pendency, with over 5 crore cases pending across courts. Long delays, high litigation costs, geographical distance, and language barriers make justice inaccessible, especially for marginalised and vulnerable groups.
A national policy could help reduce barriers related to cost, delay, distance, and language by promoting uniform access standards and citizen-centric reforms.

3. Addressing Structural Gaps in the Judiciary

According to the India Justice Report 2025, nearly 33% of High Court judges’ posts remain vacant, leaving India with only one High Court judge per 18.7 lakh people.
At the district level, courts suffer from overcrowded courtrooms, inadequate IT systems, lack of fire safety, insufficient furniture, and poor staff facilities.
A National Judicial Policy could guide systematic capacity-building, infrastructure planning, and human resource development across all levels of the judiciary.

4. Standardising Technology and Case Management

The adoption of e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital case management systems varies widely across courts. This leads to unequal access, inconsistent procedures, and differing user experiences.
A common national framework would ensure uniform, efficient, and citizen-friendly judicial services across jurisdictions.

5. Promoting Judicial Harmony

A unified policy framework can help courts across the country uphold shared constitutional values, while still preserving their institutional independence. This would bring coherence and coordination to India’s justice delivery system.

Concerns with a National Judicial Policy

1. One-Size-Fits-All Challenge

Indian states differ widely in caseloads, infrastructure quality, digital readiness, and staffing levels. A single national template may not adequately address diverse local judicial realities.

2. Risk to Judicial Independence

If the executive branch plays a significant role in shaping the policy, it could raise concerns about separation of powers and undermine judicial autonomy.

3. Implementation Capacity Constraints

Many courts lack sufficient funds, trained staff, digital tools, and infrastructure, making it difficult to implement uniform national standards effectively.

4. Resistance from High Courts

Under Articles 214–226 of the Constitution, High Courts exercise control over their procedures, rosters, and administration. Imposing uniformity may face institutional resistance from High Courts.

5. Data Gaps and Weak Judicial Statistics

Several states lack real-time data on case flow, pendency, and court performance. These data gaps hinder evidence-based policymaking and effective monitoring.

What is the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)?

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed constitutional body created to replace the Collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Constitutional Basis and Composition

The NJAC was established through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, along with the NJAC Act, 2014.

Under the NJAC system, the President of India was to appoint judges based on the recommendations of a six-member commission, consisting of:

1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) – Chairperson

2. The two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court

3. The Union Minister for Law and Justice

4. Two eminent persons

The two eminent persons were to be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Striking Down of the NJAC

In 2015, in the Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India), the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional.

Key Reasons for Striking Down NJAC

• The Court held that allowing the executive and non-judicial members to have equal say and veto power in judicial appointments undermined judicial independence.

• Judicial independence was declared to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

• The criteria for selecting “eminent persons” were vague, creating scope for excessive executive influence.

• Since the government is the largest litigant, executive involvement could create reciprocal obligations, threatening judicial impartiality.

As a result, the Supreme Court restored the Collegium system, reaffirming that judicial primacy in appointments is essential to the constitutional framework.

Collegium System vs NJAC

1. Primacy in Appointments

• Collegium System: The judiciary enjoys complete primacy in appointments.

• NJAC: Judicial primacy was diluted, as executive and non-judicial members had equal participation.

2. Transparency

• Collegium System: Operates without published criteria or recorded deliberations, leading to concerns over opacity and lack of accountability.

• NJAC: Intended to introduce greater transparency and diversity of perspectives.

3. Veto Power

• Collegium System: No formal veto; decisions are based on consensus and reiteration.

• NJAC: Any two members, including non-judicial members, could veto a candidate.

4. Risk Factors

• Collegium System: Criticised for nepotism, secrecy, and lack of accountability.

• NJAC: Risked political interference and erosion of judicial independence.

5. Judicial Independence

• Collegium System: Upheld as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

• NJAC: Declared unconstitutional for compromising judicial independence (2015 judgment).

6. Efficiency

• Collegium System: Often faces delays, partly due to government processing and informal consultations.

• NJAC: A structured commission was expected to ensure clear timelines and efficiency, though this remained theoretical.

Constitutional Basis for the Appointment of Judges in India

The Constitution of India lays down a detailed framework for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensuring judicial independence while involving constitutional authorities.

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges (Article 124)

Under Article 124, judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary.

Appointment of High Court Judges (Article 217)

According to Article 217, judges of the High Courts are appointed by the President in consultation with:

• The Chief Justice of India,

• The Governor of the concerned State, and

• The Chief Justice of the High Court.

Ad Hoc Judges in the Supreme Court (Article 127)

When there is a lack of quorum in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India, with the consent of the President, may request a High Court judge to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period.

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of India (Article 126)

In case of vacancy, absence, or inability of the CJI to perform duties, the President appoints the senior-most available Supreme Court judge as the Acting Chief Justice of India.

Appointment of Retired Judges (Article 128)

Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India, with the consent of the President, may request a retired Supreme Court judge to sit and act as a judge of the Supreme Court for a specified period.

Judicial Appointment Procedures (Collegium System)

Appointment of the Chief Justice of India

The outgoing Chief Justice of India recommends the name of the successor, usually based on the principle of seniority, to maintain continuity and avoid controversy.

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

The Chief Justice of India initiates the recommendation in consultation with Collegium members and the senior-most judge of the High Court from which the candidate is being elevated.
All opinions are recorded in writing. The recommendation is then sent to the Law Minister, followed by the Prime Minister, who advises the President for final appointment.

Appointment of High Court Chief Justices and Judges

• The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the State.

• For puisne (other) High Court judges, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court is also consulted in addition to the above authorities.

Measures to Strengthen the Judiciary in India

1. National Judicial Policy with a Flexible Federal Design

A National Judicial Policy should establish broad national standards for consistency while allowing High Courts the flexibility to adapt procedures based on regional needs, resources, and caseloads.

2. Institutionalising Case Management and Timelines

Uniform rules should be adopted for case filing, listings, adjournments, and disposal timelines to reduce delays and improve judicial efficiency across courts.

3. Filling Judicial Vacancies Through Time-Bound and Transparent Processes

Whether through reforms in the Collegium system or a future consensual appointments mechanism, judicial appointments must be predictable, criteria-based, and time-bound to address chronic vacancies.