The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, sought to fundamentally alter the system of judicial appointments in India, replacing the existing Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Its underlying principle was to enhance transparency, accountability, and broaden the consultative process in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

Underlying Principle of the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 (NJAC): The NJAC was conceived to address the long-standing criticisms against the Collegium system, which was perceived as opaque, non-transparent, and lacking accountability. The core principles driving the NJAC were:

1. Transparency: To make the process of judicial appointments more open and understandable to the public.
2. Accountability: To introduce a mechanism where decisions on judicial appointments could be scrutinized and justified.
3. Broader Consultation: To involve both the judiciary and the executive, along with civil society representation, in the appointment process, thereby ensuring a more diverse and balanced perspective.
4. Checks and Balances: To restore a degree of executive involvement, which was seen as diminished under the Collegium system, and thus strengthen the system of checks and balances.

The NJAC was to be a six-member body comprising the Chief Justice of India (Chairperson), two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons (nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, CJI, and Leader of Opposition). This composition aimed to blend judicial expertise with executive and public representation.

Supreme Court's Verdict and the Present System: However, the 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act were challenged in the Supreme Court. In the landmark Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015), a five-judge Constitution Bench, by a 4:1 majority, declared both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional and void. The Court held that:

• The NJAC's composition and powers undermined the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The inclusion of the Law Minister and the veto power given to two members (which could include the Law Minister and one eminent person) were seen as allowing the executive to interfere in judicial appointments, thus compromising judicial primacy.

Consequently, the Collegium system was revived and remains the present system for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India.

The Present System (Collegium System):

1. Composition:
   • Supreme Court: For appointments to the Supreme Court, the Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
   • High Courts: For appointments to High Courts, the Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and its two senior-most judges. This recommendation is then sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for approval.
2. Process: The Collegium recommends names for appointment or transfer. These recommendations are sent to the Union Law Ministry, which then forwards them to the President for formal appointment. The executive can seek reconsideration of the recommendations, but if the Collegium reiterates the same names, the executive is bound to make the appointments.
3. Role of Executive: The executive's role is largely limited to initiating the process, conducting background checks, and formally issuing warrants of appointment based on the Collegium's recommendations.

Criticisms of the Collegium System: Despite its revival, the Collegium system continues to face significant criticism:

• Lack of Transparency: Decisions are made behind closed doors, without public knowledge of the criteria or reasons for selection/rejection.
• Nepotism and Favouritism: Allegations of 'judge appointing judge' and promoting relatives or close associates persist.
• Lack of Accountability: There is no formal mechanism to hold the Collegium accountable for its decisions.
• Absence of Objective Criteria: The criteria for selection are not clearly defined or publicly available.
• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the judiciary has usurped a power that constitutionally belongs to the executive, leading to an imbalance of power.

In conclusion, while the 99th Amendment aimed to bring much-needed reforms to judicial appointments based on principles of transparency and accountability, it was ultimately struck down to protect judicial independence. The Collegium system, though criticized for its opaqueness, remains the operational mechanism, highlighting the ongoing tension between judicial independence and accountability in India's constitutional framework. The debate for a more balanced and transparent system continues, with discussions around a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) still underway.