Introductions

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) studied the Indian judicial system in detail. It presented major reforms in Chapter 7 of its report. The Commission aimed to strengthen judicial independence. It worked to make the courts more efficient, transparent, accountable and accessible. It also examined problems like delays, weak infrastructure, slow appointments and rising workloads. Its recommendations continue to influence discussions on judicial reforms in India.

Why Did the NCRWC Propose a New System for Judicial Appointments?

The Commission believed that the existing appointment process lacked transparency and balance. It recommended the creation of a National Judicial Commission through a constitutional amendment. This body would select judges for the Supreme Court. It would include the Chief Justice of India as the chairperson. It would also include the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. The Union Law Minister would be a member. The President would nominate one eminent person as a member. The Commission felt this structure would blend judicial experience with executive and public perspectives. It would make the process more credible and accountable.

How Should the Appointment and Transfer of High Court Judges Change?

The NCRWC suggested a clear and consistent policy for the transfer of High Court judges under Article 222. It recommended that such transfers should take place only after discussion with the Chief Justice of India and two senior Supreme Court judges. It also advised a rise in the retirement age. High Court judges should retire at 65 years. Supreme Court judges should retire at 68 years. The Commission argued that this increase would preserve judicial talent for a longer time. It would also reduce vacancies and improve stability in higher courts.

What System Did the Commission Propose for Judicial Accountability?

The NCRWC wanted a strong and fair mechanism to examine judicial misconduct. It recommended a screening committee. This committee would include the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. They would examine complaints against judges of the superior courts. If the complaint appeared serious, the case would move to a permanent inquiry committee. This committee would operate under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. After the inquiry, the findings would go to a separate seven-judge committee of the Supreme Court. This committee would decide whether the judge deserved a warning, a change of work, a transfer or removal. The Commission also encouraged voluntary resignation or self-demission by judges found guilty before Parliament begins removal proceedings under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b). The intention was to maintain public trust while protecting judicial independence.

How Should the Law of Contempt Evolve According to NCRWC?

The Commission addressed concerns about the balance between freedom of speech and powers of contempt. It recommended a change to Article 19(2). It suggested adding a proviso that allows justification by truth as a defence in contempt cases if the statement is made in public interest and in good faith. The Commission believed that truth should not be punished. It stated that only the Supreme Court and the High Courts should retain the power to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 215. Other courts or tribunals should not have this power. It also recommended a change to Article 226(5). It proposed that tribunals should not have the authority to strike down parliamentary or state laws. This power should remain with the High Courts and the Supreme Court only.

How Did the NCRWC Plan to Reduce Judicial Delays?

The Commission viewed delays as the biggest challenge to justice in India. It asked High Courts to prepare strategic five-year plans. Judicial Councils at various levels should help design and supervise these plans. These plans should aim to clear arrears in a time-bound manner. Courts should focus on cases involving prisoners in custody, tax disputes and matters of public interest. Routine civil appeals should not overshadow urgent or socially significant cases. The Commission believed that delays weaken public faith. It argued that predictable timelines would improve credibility.

What Steps Did the Commission Suggest to Strengthen Judicial Infrastructure?

The NCRWC stressed the need for modern and efficient judicial infrastructure. It said that both the Union and State governments should share the responsibility of funding the subordinate judiciary. Judicial Councils should manage planning, budgeting and oversight. They should focus on training, technology and improved management systems. The Commission wanted better court buildings, staff support and modern record-keeping. It emphasised computerisation of courts to ensure speed, accuracy and transparency. Case-tracking systems, digital records and electronic filing should become standard features.

How Should Alternative Dispute Resolution Become a Stronger Part of the System?

The Commission believed that the courts alone cannot handle the huge volume of disputes. It encouraged the expansion of Alternative Dispute Resolution. It recommended obligatory conciliation for many disputes. It asked for changes to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Courts should encourage settlements at early stages. Mediation centres should be created in every district. Lok Adalats should receive stronger institutional support. The Commission saw ADR as a powerful tool to reduce pendency and improve access to justice.

What Importance Did the NCRWC Give to Criminal Justice Reforms?

The Commission introduced a new focus on victimology. It wanted the justice system to recognise the rights and needs of victims. It suggested compensation programmes and support services. It also recommended specialised investigators for serious crimes. Trained forensic teams should handle complex cases. Efficient investigations would lead to fast trials and fewer acquittals due to poor evidence. The Commission wanted reforms that protect both victims and the accused while ensuring timely justice.

Why Did the NCRWC Recommend an All India Judicial Service?

The Commission supported the creation of an All India Judicial Service. It argued that such a service would attract the best talent. It would offer uniform training, better promotions and transparent recruitment. It would create a strong pool of judges for the subordinate courts. The NCRWC believed that this service would strengthen the foundations of the judiciary. It would reduce corruption and improve professionalism.

How Would Administrative Reforms Improve Court Efficiency?

The NCRWC highlighted the need for better management within the judiciary. Courts should use scientific methods for case flow management. They should classify cases based on urgency. Each court should set yearly disposal targets. Judges should receive training in leadership and administration. Registry staff should undergo professional courses. The Commission insisted that judicial administration must be modern, disciplined and responsive.

Why Are the NCRWC Recommendations Still Relevant Today?

The NCRWC report remains significant because it understands India’s evolving justice needs. It acknowledges the structural challenges that cause delays. It outlines solutions that protect independence while promoting accountability. Its proposals are balanced and practical. They focus on appointments, discipline, infrastructure, technology, training and public trust. Many debates today on judicial reforms still refer to its recommendations.

What Is the Overall Vision of the NCRWC for the Indian Judiciary?

The NCRWC imagined a judiciary that is independent yet accountable. It wanted a system that delivers timely justice. It wanted institutions that inspire confidence. It believed in partnership between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. It supported reforms that preserve constitutional values. Its vision combines efficiency with fairness. It seeks to make justice accessible to every citizen.