NJAC with Cross-Partisan Composition (Rejected)

A prior framework proposed a National Judicial Appointments Commission with Leaders of Opposition in both houses holding binding co-appointment authority alongside the Chief Justice and senior judges.

Rejected on legal grounds. The Supreme Court's 4:1 ruling in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — the Fourth Judges Case — held that judicial independence is a basic structure element requiring the judiciary's primacy in its own appointments [@cite_njac_2015; @cite_scobserver_njac_struck_down]. The Court held that the presence of the Union Law Minister constituted direct executive overreach, and that a two-member veto gave non-judicial figures power to override judicial primacy. An NJAC with Leaders of Opposition in binding positions faces the identical constitutional challenge. It will be struck down again. This is not a risk — it is a legal certainty.

Replaced by: the Collegium-Plus Judicial Appointments Transparency Council (JATC) — a purely advisory body with no veto power, preserving collegium primacy while adding the structured transparency mechanisms the Court explicitly invited in its 2015 remedial order.