[JURIST] The Supreme Court of India [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF] Thursday that a new law intended to change the structure of judicial appointments is unconstitutional. Traditionally the Indian judiciary was appointed by a 20-year-old collegium of five senior judges, but the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill [text, PDF] replaced that system last year with appointment by a panel of six comprising f a mix of Supreme Court judges and politicians. While many found fault with the previous collegium system, the change was met with widespread criticism as well. The court held that “the new scheme damages the basic feature of the Constitution under which primacy in appointment of judges has to be with the judiciary.” Thus, the NJAC cannot stand and the previous collegium system must been revived.

The NJAC bill became law [JURIST report] at the end of 2014 after pending in parliament for nearly two decades. JURIST Guest Columnist Manoj Mate of Whittier Law School discussed [JURIST op-ed] the background of the collegium system and the heated debate surrounding the NJAC law. The Indian judiciary is traditionally independent [JURIST op-ed] from the Indian government, including parliament. The current NJAC bill was introduced [PRS India report] in India’s parliament, the Lok Sabha [official website], by the Minister of Law and Justice on August 11, 2014.