THE CONSTITUTION (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH

AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013

The act enables greater participation of the executive branch in the appointment of Judges
in the higher judiciary, the Parliament of India has passed the Constitution (One Hundred and
Twentieth Amendment) Act, 2013 (Amendment).The bill basically deals with the
Appointment and Transfer in the Higher Judiciary by the way of making a Judicial Appointments
Panel.
The Amendment replaces the words after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme
Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose
with on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Panel as referred to in new Article
124A, which provides that there shall be a Judicial Appointments Panel.
In article 217 of the Constitution, in clause (1), for the portion beginning with the words "after
consultation" and ending with the words "the High Court", the words "on the recommendation of
the Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A" shall be substituted.

In article 222 of the Constitution, in clause (1), for the words "after consultation with the Chief
Justice of India", the words "on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission
referred to in article 124A" shall be substituted. The main question to the amendment act
basically constitutes that does this act Diminishes the Basic Structure of Indian Constitution by
Diminishing the Independence of Judiciary?

The Constitution has a place of pride to higher judiciary in India. The Supreme Court and High
Courts have vast powers for interpretation of Constitution and to extend relief against various
kinds of grievances, not excluding grievances with Political overtones. The Present amendment
makes the changes in Article 124 (2), it also inserts a new clause 124-A, further it also makes
changes in the Articles 217, 222 and 231.

The system of Collegium was introduced in 1993 with the objective of insulating the Judiciary from
political interference but it has drawn flak from various legal luminaries for not providing any
concrete criteria for the prospective appointees. The original scheme of the constitution aimed to
maintain a balance between the Executive and the Judiciary but this system has vested indisputable
powers in the Judiciary. The Constitution has no mention of such kind of a system. Thus it can be
inferred that the said amendment in these Article does not diminishes the Independence of
Judiciary

Further, the need to amend the Constitution arises as a state cannot be static. The very meaning
of the word amendment is make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to
make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances, improve. Judicial
Appointment Commission (JAC) is neither to demolish the basic structure nor to change the base
of the constitution but just to change the design of the present structure. This modification is not
control over the Judiciary. The proposed Judicial Appointments Commission, in which judges
will be marginally outnumbered, will make the selection system more transparent and help to
assess professional merit in a better way. So Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) is just a
modification in Judiciary not to destroy the basic structure of the constitution.