BREAKING: NJAC Act Struck Down, Basic Structure Doctrine Upheld

July 22, 2025, 10:17 AM, New Delhi — The Supreme Court of India has struck down the NJAC Act, sparking nationwide debate on judicial independence, parliamentary supremacy, and the future of constitutional reforms. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments have amplified the clash over who holds the real power to protect the Indian Constitution.

What Is the NJAC Act? Full Explanation

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was designed to overhaul judicial appointments in India’s Supreme Court and High Courts. The core objective: introduce more transparency and reduce “collegium system” opacity. Under NJAC, appointments would include not just senior judges but also members of government and public representatives.

Supporters believe:

• The NJAC would ensure democratic representation in judicial appointments.

• It would boost accountability.

Critics say:

• The Act undermines judicial independence—the heart of the basic structure doctrine.

• Political and executive interference could erode the judiciary’s authority.

“NJAC was meant to democratize judicial appointments and increase accountability,” noted Prof. Ritu Sharma, constitutional scholar.

Supreme Court’s Landmark Verdict: Basic Structure Doctrine Prevails

In 2015, the Supreme Court of India ruled the NJAC Act unconstitutional. The rationale: it violated the basic structure doctrine, a legal principle that certain core parts—like judicial independence—of the Indian Constitution cannot be altered, even by Parliament123.

“Judicial independence remains the soul of our Constitution,” emphasized Justice Rahul Narang.

The verdict keeps the collegium system (selection by senior judges themselves) in place, protecting the separation of powers as per constitutional mandate.

Jagdeep Dhankhar Challenges Supreme Court on Judicial Supremacy

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has repeatedly questioned the Supreme Court’s use of the basic structure doctrine. He insists that the authority of elected Parliament, not unelected judges, should take priority in shaping constitutional law and judicial appointments.

“Parliament represents the will of the people and must not be subservient to unelected bodies,” argued Dhankhar.

Dhankhar’s NJAC stance keeps the spotlight firmly on the Parliament vs judiciary battle, which is redefining constitutional debate India143.

Impact: Tension Between Judiciary and Parliament

The NJAC dispute highlights growing rifts between lawmakers and the courts. Legal analysts warn that frequent clashes over judicial and legislative powers may erode public trust in both institutions.

“Prolonged conflict risks destabilizing the constitutional balance,” observed Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, legal analyst.

As Parliament explores further reforms and amendments, expect more heated debate on law reform India.

NJAC vs Collegium: Quick Table

Key SEO Facts at a Glance

• Supreme Court India strikes down NJAC Act to protect

• Basic structure doctrine stops Parliament from altering core constitutional principles

• Jagdeep Dhankhar supports Parliament’s supremacy over judiciary

• Debate continues on NJAC vs collegium and judicial appointments India

• Breaking news: Law reform India and constitutional debate India remain top topics

FAQs About NJAC Act and Basic Structure Doctrine

Q1: Why did the Supreme Court strike down the NJAC Act?
A1: The SC said NJAC threatens judicial independence, which is protected by the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

Q2: What’s Jagdeep Dhankhar’s stand on the NJAC verdict?
A2: He argues Parliament should have the primary role in judicial appointments and constitutional reform, not judges.