NJAC Judgment Review Dismissed: Why the collegium system survived its biggest challenge

The 99th Constitutional Amendment had proposed replacing the collegium with a National Judicial Appointments Commission comprising the CJI, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons. Parliament passed it with near-unanimous support. A five-judge bench struck it down, holding that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the Basic Structure.

A review petition was filed in 2016. It lay dormant for nearly a decade. In August 2025, a seven-judge bench finally dismissed it.

---

What the Court said

Issue	Ruling
Was the original judgment wrong?	The Court did not reopen the merits. A review petition is not an appeal. The 2015 judgment was a considered opinion, not "patently erroneous"
Has the collegium worked?	The Court acknowledged the collegium's flaws: opacity, delays in appointments, allegations of nepotism. But the remedy is reform within the collegium framework — transparency measures, objective criteria, a secretariat — not replacing judicial primacy with executive primacy
Can Parliament try again?	Yes. Parliament can legislate a new judicial appointments framework. But it must preserve judicial primacy. The Court did not define "judicial primacy" in precise terms — it has been defined through individual judgments since the Second Judges case (1993)

---

Prelims trap

"The NJAC was a statutory body." False. The NJAC was proposed through the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C. The amendment itself was struck down, not just the NJAC Act. Know the difference between a constitutional amendment and a statutory body.

---

Part of: Supreme Court Judgments: July to September 2025

Read next: Same-sex marriage implementation · Preventive detention reforms