The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) judgment, on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, has been the subject of a deeply polarized debate in the public sphere and academia. This volume 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; examines the constitutional principles behind selecting judges and their application in the NJAC judgment; and comparatively looks at the judicial appointments process in six select countries—United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal—enquiring into what makes a good judge and an effective appointments process. With wide-ranging essays by leading lawyers, political scientists, and academics from India and abroad, the volume is a deep dive into the constitutional concepts of judicial independence and separation of powers as discussed in the NJAC judgment.

Highlihgts:

• Critically analyses Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India in which the Supreme Court of India, by majority, struck down as unconstitutional the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established to appoint judges to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts.
• Traces history of judicial appointments in India.
• Analyses constitutional principles behind selecting judges.
• Comparatively analyses judicial appointments process in six select countries: the UK, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Canada, and Nepal.