The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court in:

Explanation

The NJAC was meant to replace the collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. PRS records that the Supreme Court struck down the two Acts creating this independent appointments body on 16 October 2015. The Court held that executive involvement in judicial appointments impinged on the independence of the judiciary and violated the separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution. In exam terms, this is the Fourth Judges Case: the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act were invalidated, and the collegium system returned as the operative method for higher-judiciary appointments.

Why the other options are wrong

• (A) 2014 is when Parliament passed the NJAC-related Acts and they received Presidential assent, not the year in which the Supreme Court struck them down.
• (C) 2013 is too early because the NJAC Acts had not yet been passed by Parliament or assented to by the President.
• (D) 2016 is too late because the Supreme Court judgment striking down the NJAC was delivered in October 2015.

Concept

This tests judicial appointments, judicial independence and the basic structure doctrine. RAS repeatedly asks this area because it links constitutional amendments, separation of powers and Supreme Court control over institutional safeguards.

Source

• PRS Legislative Research

Related questions

• A bill to amend the Constitution can be introduced:
• A bill under Article 3 for the formation of a new State requires:
• A CAG audit of the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) revealed that what percentage of beneficiaries had blank, zero, Null or N/A bank-account details?
• A Financial Emergency under Article 360 must be approved by Parliament within:
• A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament can be summoned under which Article?
• A joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament under Article 108 can be called to resolve a deadlock on: