Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India : Transparency, Accountability, and Independence

The NJAC judgment has been the subject of a deeply polarized debate in the public sphere and academia. This volume critically analyses the NJAC judgment and provides a rich context to it, in terms of philosophical, comparative, and constitutional issues that underpin it. The work traces the history of judicial appointments in India, analyses constitutional principles behind selecting judges, and their application in the NJAC Case, and comparatively examines the judicial appointments process in six select foreign jurisdictions.

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India, by majority, struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established to appoint judges to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts. Unsurprisingly, the NJAC judgment has been the subject of a deeply polarized debate in the public sphere and academia. The essays in this volume analyse the NJAC judgment, and provide a rich context to it, in terms of philosophical, comparative, and constitutional issues that underpin it. The work traces the history of judicial appointments in India; analyses constitutional principles behind selecting judges and their application in the NJAC Case; and comparatively examines the judicial appointments process in six select countries-UK, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Canada, and Nepal-enquiring into what makes a good judge and an effective appointments process.