In striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has basically asserted the independence of the judiciary. The proposed commission violates the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, which, the apex court rightly holds, is fundamental to the basic structure of the Constitution. This is, of course, not the last word on the issue, since the government can well file a review or curative petition. However, a line has been drawn by the ruling of the Constitution bench, which will be hard for the government to step over. While the demand for the NJAC began with the observation that the standing of the judiciary has been reduced in the eyes of the public by pervasive inefficiency and embarrassing instances of corruption, it is now asserted that better functioning of the judiciary must not be secured at the expense of its independence.
Now that the judiciary has asserted its independence, however, it must address the long-pending issues that had lent credibility to the demand for an NJAC. Within its fold, it must develop zero tolerance for corruption and compromise. There was a time when prominent judges even withdrew from social life for fear of being pressured, and unquestionable, inflexible probity remains an urgent need. In addition, tardiness and inconsistency detract from the majesty of the law and, while making appointments must remain the prerogative of the judiciary, some transparency in the process would abate needless fears and speculation. As the last line of defence for democracy, the judiciary is welcome to its freedom, but must be seen to be transparently worthy of it.
