Key differences between UPA and BJP's Judicial Appointments Commission Bill

The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill (JAC) being drafted by the Narendra Modi government may be quite different from the one introduced by the UPA dispensation which lapsed at the end of the 15th Lok Sabha. ET takes a look at the likely difference between the two bills.

PANEL ENACTMENT

UPA: The Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013 cleared by the UPA cabinet suggests that the composition of the JAC will be determined by an ordinary law.

NDA: The Modi govt aims to incorporate the composition and functions of the JAC in the Constitution itself (by inserting Article 124(A) to define composition and 124(B) to define functions of the panel). The terms of the JAC and its composition cannot be altered by an ordinary law and would require a Constitutional amendment that entails getting a 2/3 majority

NUMBER OF MEMBERS

UPA: The UPA Bill said the JAC will comprise 6 members — Chief Justice of India, two seniormost judges- other than CJI- of the SC, Law Minister, and two eminent jurists who will be selected by a panel comprising PM, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI

NDA: The NDA government may suggest that the JAC be a seven member body. The NDA Bill is likely to have four seniormost judges other than the CJI in the panel to placate the judiciary

CIVIL SOCIETY ROLE

UPA: Bill said there should be two eminent jurists in the JAC

NDA: Bill to state that one should be an eminent jurist and the other should be an eminent member of civil society

OTHER VIEW: The Standing Committee on Law and Justice had recommended that there should be three eminent persons on the panel and the third one should be from the SC/ST/women/minority community by rotation. Modi government mulling over whether it should incorporate this view.

REVIEW OF DECISIONS

UPA: This provision was not there in the UPA Bill

NDA: Bill may incorporate a provision making the JAC decision binding on the President and in case the President rejects any name, it should be open to judicial review

TIME FACTOR NDA: Bill may also put a time period - most likely of two months - for the JAC to take a decision on filling a vacancy. This may be done to expedite the filling up of vacancies in post of judges in the high courts