Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

Gives the grounds and aftermath of the NJAC judgment, showing that the appointment dispute it settled remains alive.

• The 99th Amendment (2014) created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2015.
• Note that the Court struck it down because it gave the executive and non-judicial members a potential veto over appointments.
• The 2015 judgment suggested a permanent secretariat to assess candidates, yet the Memorandum of Procedure has still not been finalised and the Centre-judiciary dispute continues.

Use the jurist debate to suggest that, within the collegium-led system, appointments need transparent criteria and a wider pool.

• No distinguished jurist has been appointed in 76 years; reasons include the collegium's habit of choosing from High Courts and the Bar and the undefined meaning of 'distinguished'.
• Way forward: set transparent criteria for 'distinguished jurist' in the memorandum of procedure, so the collegium can look beyond High Court judges and advocates.

Use the Punjab episode to show that, with the collegium in place, gaps in the Memorandum of Procedure still cause friction, and to propose MoP reform.

• Under the collegium, primacy rests with the judiciary's opinion, and the State's role in High Court appointments is only consultative.
• Punjab says the Centre notified its High Court Chief Justice without its views, because the MoP sets no time limit for them; the Bar Association called the demand executive interference.
• Reform the MoP: fix timelines for State views, after which the file proceeds, and record reasons when State objections are overruled.