Supreme Court panel visits judge’s home as Jagdeep Dhankhar reignites NJAC debate: ‘Things would have been different’

In a remarkable development, a panel from the Supreme Court of India recently visited the residence of a sitting judge, triggering a new wave of discussions around judicial reforms and the long-standing National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) debate. The visit comes in the context of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s provocative comments, which reignited the contentious debate over the NJAC. His remarks, particularly the statement that “things would have been different,” have further fueled calls for a reconsideration of the judicial appointment process in India.

The NJAC and Its Background

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body created under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014. The goal of the NJAC was to reform the existing collegium system, through which judges are appointed to the higher judiciary. Under the collegium system, the selection of judges is made by a group of senior judges without external or political input, a process that has faced criticism for lack of transparency and accountability.

The NJAC, on the other hand, aimed to involve a broader spectrum of people in the process, including the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and two senior judges of the Supreme Court, alongside a public figure. Proponents of the NJAC argued that it would make the judiciary more transparent, efficient, and independent by introducing a balanced mix of judicial and executive involvement.

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, asserting that it undermined the independence of the judiciary. The Court’s decision reignited the debate about how best to reform the judicial appointment process, with both supporters and detractors of the NJAC arguing their case.

Dhankhar’s Remarks and Their Implications

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has been vocal on the topic of judicial reforms, made his comments during a recent event that sparked renewed public interest in the NJAC debate. Dhankhar, who also holds the position of ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, argued that India’s judicial appointment process could have been markedly different if the NJAC had been implemented. He expressed his belief that the NJAC would have introduced greater accountability and transparency into the judicial selection process.

Dhankhar’s statement—“Things would have been different”—echoes the frustrations of many who feel that the existing collegium system has not kept pace with India’s changing political and legal landscape. His remarks have reopened a national conversation about whether the judicial appointments process should be revisited, especially in light of the growing concerns about the lack of diversity and accountability in the judiciary.

The Vice President’s comments also touched upon the need for broader reforms in the legal system. He argued that there is a pressing need to improve judicial transparency and ensure that the process for selecting judges is more inclusive, fair, and representative of India’s diverse population. This comes as several civil society organizations and political figures continue to push for reforms aimed at making the judiciary more responsive to the people it serves.

Supreme Court Panel’s Visit to Judge’s Home

While Dhankhar’s comments were significant in themselves, they were compounded by the surprising visit of a Supreme Court panel to the home of a sitting judge. The panel, which was formed to investigate allegations related to the judicial appointment process, visited the judge’s residence as part of its inquiry. Although the details of the visit remain private, the event has attracted significant media attention, raising questions about transparency and the procedures followed in the judicial selection process.

The panel’s visit has sparked a wider debate about the extent to which the judiciary is open to public scrutiny and whether there are potential conflicts of interest in the current system of judicial appointments. While it is not uncommon for judicial panels to engage with the judiciary on a variety of matters, the fact that the visit involved a sitting judge has added a layer of complexity to the issue.

The Push for Judicial Accountability

The core issue raised by both the NJAC debate and the panel’s visit to the judge’s home is judicial accountability. Advocates of judicial reform argue that the lack of transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process weakens public trust in the system. They assert that an independent judiciary is essential for the functioning of a democratic state, but that independence should not equate to a lack of responsibility.

The question of judicial accountability has gained prominence in the wake of controversies over certain judicial appointments and decisions, which some critics argue have been influenced by political considerations or lack public scrutiny. Proponents of the NJAC contend that a more balanced approach, which involves input from both the judiciary and the executive, would reduce the possibility of bias and improve the overall quality of judicial appointments.

In contrast, opponents of the NJAC argue that the system would compromise the independence of the judiciary by bringing in political influence into the process. They emphasize that the collegium system, while imperfect, ensures that judicial appointments are made by senior judges with the experience and knowledge to identify the most qualified individuals.

The Road Ahead for Judicial Reforms

While the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the NJAC in 2015 remains a key point of contention, the conversation about judicial reforms continues to evolve. The involvement of high-profile figures like Jagdeep Dhankhar in the debate has brought attention to the need for greater transparency and accountability in the judicial system.

Many experts believe that judicial reforms are necessary to modernize India’s legal system and make it more responsive to the needs of a diverse and rapidly changing society. While there may not be immediate moves to revive the NJAC, the ongoing discussions highlight the importance of balancing judicial independence with the need for greater accountability.

Ultimately, any reform of the judicial appointment process will require a careful balancing act—one that ensures the judiciary remains free from undue political influence, while also providing sufficient checks and balances to maintain public trust. The visit of the Supreme Court panel and Dhankhar’s remarks indicate that this debate is far from over, and it will likely continue to shape the future of judicial governance in India.

Conclusion

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments have reignited a vital debate on judicial appointments in India, particularly regarding the National Judicial Appointments Commission. While the Supreme Court’s visit to a judge’s home adds another layer to the ongoing discussion, the central issue remains whether India’s judicial system can strike the right balance between independence and accountability. The debate is far from over, and it is clear that any significant change to India’s judicial governance will require careful deliberation and a consensus that takes into account both the principles of justice and the evolving needs of the country.