In 2015, in the fourth judge's case, the National Judicial Appointment Commission (hereafter NJAC) was held ultra-virus to the constitution of India. The authors of this paper try to delineate the composition of the commission and draw a contrast between the judicial appointment by the executive i.e. before 1981 and the collegium system i.e. after its implementation in 1998.

The paper further delves into the drawbacks of the collegium system, which reverberated the 99th Amendment Act of 2014 in which the parliament proposed to insert articles 124 A, 124B, and 124C in the Indian constitution. While critically analysing the NJAC act the authors conclude that it violates the basic structure doctrine of the constitution and propose alternatives to fill the lacuna left by the parliament

The paper also analyses that repercussions of the implementation of NJAC diluting the doctrine of separation of power. It becomes strenuous to abide by the most pertinent aspect of basic structure that is separation of power. In the end, the author concludes with Recommendations in judicial reforms fostering judicial independence.

Acknowledgement
We are profoundly grateful to our mentor, Mr. Parth Singh, for his unwavering guidance and support throughout our research internship at the office of Advocate Partap Singh. His extensive expertise in constitutional theory and his dedication to legal scholarship have been an invaluable source of inspiration for this research paper. Throughout this internship, Mr. Singh has been a constant source of encouragement, offering constructive feedback and sharing his vast knowledge and experience. His mentorship has not only enhanced my understanding of the jurisprudential though process of the country but also the law and has also instilled in me a strong sense of professional ethics and dedication to legal advocacy. We are deeply appreciative of the opportunities he has provided, and We are honored to have had the chance to learn from him. This paper would not have been possible without his invaluable advice and supervision.

Introduction
After 1946, when the constituent assembly created its first draft, it was sent to the judicial members for review. There were a lot of backlashes on the same as the doctrine of separation of powers was not respected and the judiciary was not independent and hence could not act as third pillar of democracy. To rectify the constituent assembly's blunder, they contested 2 provisions in the first draft.

The first one related to the judicial appointments to which they responded that the civil service officers would not be appointed as judicial officers as it hampers the unbiased opinion of the judges in the judgement and the second pertained to the transfers from one high court to another to which they proposed that executive's will not intrude in such transfers. After revising the constitution with amendments. The 3 most pertinent provisions dealing with the appointment of judged by the collegium are below mentioned.

124(2) article dealing with appointment of judges in the Supreme Court. The article states that the president In consultation with CJI and senior-most judges of the court will appoint judges Concerning High Court, 217 of the constitution deals with the same. 222 deals with the transfer of judges from one high court to another as the Supreme Court has no regional bench therefore it only concerns the High court.

Research Methodology
Research Design The research design of the paper primarily focuses on qualitative methodology, considering both primary and secondary sources. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the judicial system since 1981 and how judicial appointments have changed over the years. The author also mentions various interpretations by judicial officers pertaining to the status of advice from the Chief Justice. The research focuses on temporal variations from 1981 to 2015.

• Primary sources: The authors use case laws inclusive of SP Gupta v. Union of India, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, and National Judicial Appointment Commission, and statutory provisions which incorporate the Constitution and NJAC Act 2014.
• Secondary sources: The authors have used research papers from reputed journals and sites like NLSIU, Live Law, SCC Blog, Manupatra, and many more. They also reference judicial commentaries on Article 217 along with Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C.

Evolution Of The Collegium System Since Independence:
Before 1973 there was a conventional notion that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court would be appointed as the chief justice of India but the appointment of this chief justice ignited the debate concerning the collegium system. AN ray was appointed as the Chief justice superseding 2 other senior judges. The seniority principle is the unwritten convention which was broken which added fuel to the fire. Because of this incident, the first judge's case of 1981 S.P Gupta v. Union of India[1] was decided. which specified the scope of 124 article by defining the scope of the word 'consultation'. The court directed that consultation does not imply 'concurrence'and the opinion of the chief justice may not be taken into consideration after providing cogent reasons.

The repercussion of the judgment was directly on the independence of the judiciary. The power solely rested in the hands of the executive concerning the subject matter however the judgment was set aside in the second judge case i.e. Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India [2]. The court set aside the judgment In the First judge's case and directed that the role of the CJI is primary and the appointment has to be made after conformity with the CJI's opinion. It also introduced the collegium system where the power to appoint judges was conferred with the judiciary by CJI and two senior-most judges

Fast forward to 2014 then law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Law and Justice, introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014, in the Lok Sabha. This bill amended articles 124 and 217 and introduced 124A 125B and 124C. 124A provided constitutional validity to the NJAC system. The composition includes 6 members which are the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the SC, the Union Law Minister and two "eminent persons". The two eminent persons shall be selected by the Chief Justice of India, the Leader of Opposition and the Prime Minister of India.

Article 124B laid down the functions of the body. Clause C recommended the commission to ensure the selection process is unbiased and based on merit but the most pertinent element which was merit was not elaborated on by the Drafters of the bill. In the absence of the criteria, it left room for arbitrariness. The criteria concerning merit should be objective rather than subjective as it supports transparency.

Now the question arises of how NJAC will work. Whenever there is a vacancy in the court the same will be reported to the central government and in turn they direct NJAC to notify the names of the judges to fill the vacant seats. With respect to notification of vacancies, it has to be provided 6 months in advance and for vacancies due to resignation and death, the same has to be reported within 30 days. The person will not be appointed if two members of the committee have exercised their veto power The president has been provided the power to give names for reconsideration if they have been rejected by the NJAC .The selection of judges of the high court will be on the basis of merit and other sustainable criteria as specified in the regulation.

The other sustainable eligibility criteria included the performance of judges in the court and their participation in the post hitherto. Also, the criteria related to the number of judgments, judgement where the candidate has the dissenting opinion from the majority opinion will be taken into consideration. The committee will also look at whether the candidate's involvement in the judgement which had an element of a miscarriage of justice

Now to make an opinion let's compare the judicial appointments before and after the collegium system that is comparing appointments of the courts by the collegium and the executive specifically focussing on diversity concerning race, caste, and religion as unlike other countries' regional parity is not a ground for judicial appointments in supreme court

The pre-requisite for a person to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court is -the judge of HC (HC cadre), a practising advocate (bar) and a distinguished jurist[3].

To become of member of the high court cadre following is the eligibility criteria – a judicial officer in the lower judiciary or a practising advocate[4]

While the eligibility criteria talk about the 3 strategies on paper but in pragmatic terms major appointments have been through the bar. The former term implies the individual who has been practicing in the bar and they are allowed to become part of the bench. Such individuals have no experience of being a judicial officer. Appointments are solely based on their distinguished performance as a professional. On the contrary, The career-judiciaries are the personalities who have served as judicial officers in the lower courts and have gained experience in the same field[5].

Data- the judicial appointments in the Supreme Court from the high court cadre is only 12% and the figure drops to 10% when judges were appointed to HC while serving in the lower courts. The percentage of appointments where the retired judges have been summoned back into the court is only 2% as they can be called back under Article 128

Now let's discuss the average tenure of the officers who are selected from different backgrounds by executive and collegium.

The average tenure of judges appointed by an executive from the HC cadre is 2337 days to that of the judge directly appointed from the bar 2816 days. Under the collegium system, the average tenure of the judges from the bar is 2244 days and of HC cadre is 1853 days. Therefore the collegium continued with the tradition of having the tenure of judged from the HC cadre less then HC bar

The average tenure of judged from the HC cadre is 1160 days to that of the HC bar is 1870 days under the collegium. The collegium increased the difference between the two by 79%. It's not only rare for lower rank judicial officers to be elected as supreme court judges but also the tenure they are assigned is significantly low as compared to the tenure of the judges from the HC bar.

Inference: The difference in the tenure of the judge from the HC bar to that of the HC cadre is slightly less than executive which is 391 days.

Now let's discuss the extent to which the regional representation is there in the bench under the collegium and the executive system.

The judges who were appointed by the executive, 45% belonged to Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. The courts with the maximum share of the judges were Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, and Patna. The executive made appointments from 18 different high courts whereas the collegium from 19 courts. There has always been a hegemony of judges from few high courts which undermines the objective of regional representation unlike in South Africa there is a policy where mandatory representation from various regions is required to cater to the needs of cases where a repository of local laws is required.

Problems Related to Collegium System

Although no superior alternative to the collegium has been found in the past 29 years, the existing collegium system has loopholes in the following ways:

• Eminence to eligibility rather than the suitability of the candidate: The existing collegium system gave more salience to the eligibility criteria.
  • The person who is eligible or qualified for the position of a judge was nominated, with less importance given to the suitability of such a person to be appointed as a judge.
  • For instance, it disregarded the principles of whether such a person acquires adequate knowledge about law and the kinds of cases he or she has dealt with.
• Nepotism: In the collegium system, the selection and recruitment of the nominated person transpire behind closed doors, not revealing the basis on which a person is decided on. This indicates opacity in the appointment of judicial officers.
• Collegium system not subjected to judicial review: As mentioned above, the only criteria that could be challenged was the eligibility of the person and not the suitability of the person. Thus, the person who is nominated for the position of judge could not be subjected to judicial review solely on the basis of suitability.
• Unequal representation: The collegium system is based on favoritism. Preference is given to like-minded people, and there is a lack of representation of women.
• Content of consultation ignored: The only thing which was subject to judicial review was the effectiveness of the consultation, i.e., whether all the documents and information of the candidate nominated to be a judge were on record, or whether the CJI's opinion was given primacy or not.
• Vacant seats: No appropriate provision is laid down in order to fill up the casual vacancies in the seats. As over five crore cases are pending across all the courts, only 20,580 judges work in the apex court, high courts, and subordinate courts. The vacancy is still around 347 positions. Similarly, in district courts, as there is a sanctioned strength of 25,081, the working strength is only 19,781, with around 5,300 district judge positions vacant.

Amendment

Taking into account the cloudiness of the existing collegium system, Parliament made a 99th amendment act in 2014, which introduced changes in Article 124 of the Indian Constitution, and the existing collegium system ceased to exist.

• Through the 99th amendment, it proposed to make additions by way of Article 124A, 124B, and 124C.
• On 11th August 2014, the Ministry of Law and Justice, under Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, laid on the table the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014.
• The bill introduced the procedure to be followed for making the appointment and transfer of judges.
• For the procedure of the appointment and transfer of judges from one high court to another, Parliament introduced NJAC – National Judicial Appointment Commission.

What Is NJAC ?
It Is An Institution That Was Proposed By The Government Of India For The Recruitment And Transfer Of Judges, And Governmental Employees Employed At The Central Or State Level.

Recruitment

It includes the nomination, appointment, and selection of candidates.

Composition of NJAC

Article 124 A of the Indian Constitution puts forward the composition of the NJAC, which is as follows:

• Chief Justice of India: Proposed to be the ex officio chairman of the commission.
  • Ex officio: A person who is given the status because of the present position.
• 2 Senior Judges: The collegium system will choose the two senior judges to be appointed as members of the NJAC.
• Union Minister of Law and Justice.
• 2 Eminent Persons: Nominated by a special committee comprised of the Prime Minister, CJI, and the leader of the opposition party from the Lok Sabha, holding the post for three years.

Thus, NJAC was proposed to comprise six persons.

Function and Procedure to be Followed by NJAC

Functions of the NJAC are as follows:

• Recommend candidates who fulfill the required criteria such as merit, ability, knowledge, etc., to be appointed as the Chief Justice of India, judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, including the Chief Justice of the High Court.
• Aid the transfer of judges, incorporating the Chief Justice of HC from one high court to another.

Procedure

In the Case of Supreme Court Judges:

• In Case of Chief Justice: The National Judicial Appointment Commission will recommend the person they think fits in and has the most experience.
• In Case of Other 2 Senior Judges: It will suggest people based on their skills, merit, and seniority.

In the Case of High Court Judges:

• In the case of the Chief Justice of the High Court, the candidate will be nominated based on merit, seniority, ability, and possession of the required skills.
• In the case of the appointment of other judges, NJAC will put forward its recommendation for the nomination of the candidate to the Chief Justice of India.

Difference Between Collegium System And NJAC:
Though there is no mention of the collegium system in the constitution of India but it remains in existence from the evolution of the three-judge cases i.e. SP Gupta v/s Union Of India, Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association v/s Union Of India, Third Judge Case. In contrast, NJAC is the proposed constitutional body which came after the 99th Amendment act and wanted to initiate changes in article 124 of the Indian constitution.

The collegium system comprised of chief justice of Supreme Court and other four senior judges. To differentiate, NJAC was designed to comprise 6 members with included chief justice of India, other 2 senior judges, 2 eminent people, minister of law and justice.

The collegium system forbids the interference and involvement of the executive in the appointment, elevation, and transfer of judges. In variation, part of executive body in involved in the appointment and transfer of judges in matter of NJAC.

Critical Analysis Of The NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission)
NJAC through its 99th amendment act disregarded the existing collegium system as a whole and brought qualitative and substantive changes for the recruitment and transfer of judges.

NJAC gave VETO power to the members to halt or terminate the recommendation of a person to be appointed as a judge. It is evident from the fact that professionals who are not even in the field of law, without having adequate knowledge can stop a person from being appointed as judge. Thus union minister along with the 2 other eminent persons can have immense control over the recruitment process.

While the collegium system allows the minimal interference of the executive in the appointment of judicial officers, however, NJAC breaks off the primacy of the judiciary for the recruitment of judges by imbibing the excessive role of the executive. NJAC also violates the basic structure of the Indian constitution which is the doctrine of separation of power.

Taking into consideration that the collegium system leads to nepotism and favoritism but independence of the judiciary still remains intact. In contrast, the independence of the judiciary gets ripped off in the NJAC ACT.

NJAC minimizes the role of the CJI accompanying the president to be a rubber stamp. Moreover, the eminent persons are appointed by a special committee which comprises of Prime minister, CJI, other judges, and the opposition of Lok Sabha. No established criteria is mentioned as to who will be eligible to be regarded as an eminent person.

Declaration Of NJAC As Unconstitutional And Void: (Fourth Judge Case, 2015)
[6]The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Commission (NJAC) Unconstitutional as it violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India by 4;1 Majority. Justices J S Khehar, MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Adarsh Kumar Goel declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar upheld it.

History Of The Case: after the second judge case comprising 9 judges in 1993, there was an upgradation of the position of CJI from a mere consultative role to effective consultation. consultation system was read with the meaning of the word concurrence. It increased the efficiency and the primacy of the judiciary in case of recruitment. However, seeing the loopholes in the existing system, parliament proposed to enact the NJAC bill 2014 in which it made alterations to article 124 of the Indian constitution. The APEX court challenged the validity of the 99thamendment.

Issues:

• Whether the appointment of judges under the NJAC ACT gives excessive control to the executive or not?
• Does the Second judge case give primary importance to the independence of the judiciary or not?

Judgment: SC, declared that the proposed NJAC act violated the doctrine of separation of power which constitutes the basic structure of the constitution of India. Declaring NJAC as constitutional would repeal all the proposed amendments such as Article 124a which dealt with the composition of the NJAC, article 124b which dealt with the transfer of the judges of the HC, And article 124 c which dealt with the power of the parliament to make regulations under the act.

The court declared NJAC unconstitutional and void. IT also revived the existence of the collegium which was supposed to be repealed by the 99th Amendment Act of 2014.

Some Alternatives To The Judicial Reforms:
Although the Apex court has declared the 99th Amendment Act 2014 as unconstitutional there could be many alternatives to the proposed judicial reforms to make it effective or constitutional as a whole which are as follows:

1. Changes in the exercise of veto power: NJAC gave its members the benefit of using veto power to terminate the recommendation of the persons to be nominated for the position of judge. There were immense chances for the misuse of such power by persons who do not have a legal background. However, if some alterations are made by parliament to describe the situation and criteria under which members are allowed to use veto power, it will decrease the embezzlement by the political leaders.
    
2. Defined eligibility and qualifications of the persons to be categorized as eminent persons: In the NJAC act, no prescribed qualification alludes to the person to be nominated by the special committee as an Eminent person. Thus, parliament can put forward the criteria and qualifications for such persons and the basis on which he/she will be nominated.
    
3. More significance could be given to the CJI along with the other two senior judges in order to ensure the primacy and independence of the judiciary.
    
4. Practices in other countries could be followed, such as in Canada, where special advisors are allotted the work to gather the information and details about the person who fits the specified criteria to be appointed as a judge. Such a report is then handed over to the judicial committee, which checks the eligibility and background of the person.

Concept Of Independence Of Judiciary:

Our Constitution of India has Classified three main organs of Government which is Legislature, Executive, Judiciary where Legislature is basically a law making organ of our country , Executive mainly implements the laws and Judiciary works for the protection of laws. The Doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution Separation of powers mainly works to separate the functions of each organ of government which means one organ of government does not interfere in the functions of other governments so that it maintains the check and balance system and balances the Independent Judiciary.

Judiciary independence involves that it should be free from any undue influence and impartial as the separation of powers also suggests that every organ of government has worked separately and does not interfere with each other. Certain measures are to be taken which balancing with judicial independence of our country.

• Establishment Reforms: By Establishing Certain more Courts or Supreme courts that mainly deal with the cases and adjudicate the matters independently.
1. Judiciary Fund: Establishing a Separate Judiciary fund so that the fund is utilized only in the specified factors.
2. Appointment Procedures: Restructured the process so that transparency and accountability for the appointment of judges at various levels.
• Legal Tenure: Increased Retirement age for judges so that uniformity in age is the same for the supreme court and high court along with this increased the no. of working days to solve pending cases.
   
• Diversity in Judicial Appointments: The representation of women reflects low percentage of female judges. Women constitute nearly 48% of the country's Population.
• Only 3% covered by women in various highest courts of various states in India.
   
3. Public Awareness: Spread awareness and advocate for Independent Judiciary
• Public Awareness: Empowered the Education and spread awareness so that public will be aware of the fact of Independence of judiciary.

Comparative Analysis:

We are continuously facing a problem between the Executive and Judiciary mainly for the matters of judiciary independence where appointment is one of the main problems. The center violates the theory of separation of power which is the basic structure of our constitution and advocates becoming a part of the collegium.

Procedure for Appointing a Judge in India:

The process of appointing judges is a crucial aspect of any democratic society, as it plays a significant role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all. The judicial appointment processes in different democracies around the world, with a particular focus on comparing it with the system in India.

Judicial Appointment Processes in Other Democracies:

• Judicial Appointment Process in China: In China, the highest court is the Supreme People's Court where the judges are mainly appointed by the National People's Congress. The local people's courts and military court appointments are made mainly by the judicial commission of the Chinese government. The judges' conduct, promotion, or removal are managed by the standing committee set up by the People's Congress. We can say that the appointment of judges in China is done by its council and the judiciary plays no role in it.
• Judicial Appointment Process in the United States: In the United States, federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The American Bar Association plays a key role in evaluating the qualifications of judicial nominees. Lifetime appointments are common for federal judges, ensuring independence from political influence.
• Judicial Appointment Process in the United Kingdom: In the UK, judges are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Judicial Appointments Commission conducts selection processes for most judicial appointments, ensuring transparency and merit-based selections. The UK upholds a tradition of judicial independence and impartiality.
• Judicial Appointment Process in Canada: In Canada, judges are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Canadian Judicial Council oversees the conduct and discipline of judges, ensuring accountability. Diversity and representation are key considerations in judicial appointments in Canada.

Comparison with India:
In India, judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Chief Justice of India and a collegium of senior judges. The collegium system has faced criticism for lacking transparency and accountability. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act was introduced in India to reform the appointment process, but it was later struck down by the Supreme Court.

The judicial appointment processes in different democracies vary in terms of transparency, accountability, and independence. While some countries prioritize merit-based selections and diversity, others focus on political appointments. Reforms in the judicial appointment process are crucial to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and build public trust.

After focusing on different countries' Judicial appointments we can say that the executive and legislatures play an active role. There is not any strict application of doctrine of separation of power in relation to appointment. In India, this principle is very difficult to find its applicability in relation to the appointment of judges.

Recommendations for Effective Reforms

• Focus on Judging:
  • Managing numerous cases, checking petitions, and applications is a significant part of the day (when the judge's mind is fresh)
• Administrative work:
  • Not judicial, can be handled by the Registrar, Judicial officers must focus on cases.
• Independent Judiciary:
  • Means that it is not under the control of the legislature and executive, which is the organ of the government.
  • The working and dependency of judges on the government violates procedures and effectiveness.
• Autonomous Society:
  • Our society wants effective operation, but the process of judiciary is slow, and the justice system is financed poorly.
• Improving legal aid services for marginal communities.

Strengthening Judicial Independence:

• Ensuring transparent judicial appointments and promotions.
• Safeguarding judicial autonomy from political interference.

Improving Case Management:

• Streamlining court procedures to reduce delays.
• Investing in training for court staff to enhance efficiency.
• Adopting technology for case tracking and management.

Increased Retirement Age for Judges:

• Increased number of working days to tackle the pending cases.
• The age of retirement for High Court judges to be raised from 62 to 65 years for uniformity with the Supreme Court.

Diversity in Judicial Appointments:

• Low percentage of female judges.
• The composition of the higher judiciary should reflect socioeconomic diversity.
• Women constitute nearly 48% of the country's population, but only 3% are in the highest courts of various states.
• No women appointed as Chief Justice of India; no women were appointed as Attorney General or Solicitor General.

Expedite Establishment of Fast Track Courts:

• The Government of India targeted 1,023 fast-track special courts, but only 609 are functional as of Dec 31, 2020.

E-court Projects:

• India has not realized the true potential of e-courts; we lag in using advanced technologies such as blockchain and AI.

Decentralization of Power of Judiciary:

• There should be regional benches of the Supreme Court.
• Why should any new tribunal be set up only in New Delhi?
• Why are appellate tribunals still based out of New Delhi?

Efforts for Translation of Laws into Regional Languages:

• India's linguistic diversity demands it; not everyone is well-acquainted with Hindi and English.
• It's depriving citizens of equal access to justice.

Repeal of Obsolete Laws:

• The government must periodically revise and monitor laws that no longer serve any purpose.
• Out of 25 high courts, the Additional Solicitors General of India are engaged in only 12 high courts.

Increase the Number of Magistrates:

• The strength of judges needs to be increased for both the Apex court and high courts.
• India needs new amendments, repeals, and to fill all vacancies.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied:

• Justice requires the court to allocate sufficient time for solving disputes and trials, including adjournments in emergency cases.

Nomination of Judges:

• Nominations of judges should be based on ability and qualifications.
• The Indian judiciary needs appointments based on caste, race, and religion.

Investigation Policy:

• Lack of investigation policies in India leads to innocent individuals being falsely accused and suffering physical and mental harassment.
• The court should resolve disputes and solve cases as early as possible.

Additional Recommendations:

• Promote settlement and mediation mechanisms.
• Increase use of technology and digitization.
• Address adjournment culture.
• Establish an Indian mediation service.

Conclusion
To deduce, the need for judicial reforms is paramount in promoting a uniform and efficient judicial system that upholds the principles of equity for all. By implementing the recommendations we can strive towards a judiciary that is more accessible, independent, accountable, and trusted by the public. It is only through continuous improvement and adaptation that we can truly achieve a justice system that serves the best interests of society as a whole.

In collegium system the selection and recruitment of the nominated person transpire behind the doors, not revealing the basis of which a person is decided on. This indicates opacity in the appointment of the judicial officers. The process of appointing judges is a cornerstone of the justice system in any democracy. By understanding and comparing the judicial appointment processes in different countries, we can gain valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each system.

It is essential to strive for transparency, accountability, and independence in judicial appointments to ensure the rule of law and justice prevail. The Doctrine of Basic structure of Constitution Separation of powers mainly works to separate the functions of each organ of government which means one organ of government does not interfere in the functions of other government so that it maintains the check and balance system and balanced the Independent Judiciary. The strength of judges need to be increased and raised in India for Apex court as well as high courts because India needs for new amending, repealing and filling all the vacancy.

Bibliography:

• https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/national-judicial-appointments-commission
• https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/tag/njac
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1164880
• https://thewire.in/law/india-judiciary-courts-pendency-causes-caste-women
• https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=nlsir
• Towards A Model Of Judicial Review For Collegium Appointments: The Need For A Fourth Judges' Case? (manupatra.in)
• Home - SPRF

References:

• 1982(2)SCR 365
• (1990) 2 S.C.R. 433
• Constitution of India 1950, art 124 (3)
• Constitution of India 1950, art 217 (2)
• Tripathy, R., & Dhanee, S. (2020). An empirical assessment of the collegium's impact on the composition of the Indian Supreme Court. In National Law School of India Review (Vol. 32, Issue 1, p. Article 6).
  URL: https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=nlsir
• Law, L. (2015, October 16). Live law. Live Law.
  URL: https://www.livelaw.in/njac-unconstitutional-constitution-bench-41-2/

Written By:

1. Ayushi Mendhiratta, Legal Interns, Office of Advocate Partap Singh
2. Devanshu Saxena, Legal Interns, Office of Advocate Partap Singh &
3. Kriti Mehta, Legal Interns, Office of Advocate Partap Singh

Also Read:

• The Legal System in India: An Analysis