| Contents |
| Chapter I |
Introductory |
| 1.1 |
Reference to the Law Commission |
| 2. |
Letter of Chairman |
| 3. |
Letter of the Minister of Law to Chairman |
| 4. |
Suggestions invited from various quarters and awaited |
| 5. |
Reports forwarded between March 1978 and present Report |
| Chapter 2 |
Importance of The Subject |
| 2.1 |
Role of High Courts and Supreme Court |
| 2. |
Importance of independent judiciary |
| 3. |
Wrong appointments-adverse effects |
| 4. |
Confidence commanded by the judiciary |
| 5. |
Respect of the bar |
| 6. |
Observations in 79th Report |
| 7. |
Earlier Law Commission's observation |
| 8. |
Effect of wrong appointment |
| Chapter 3 |
Position in Various Countries |
| 3.1 |
Analysis |
| 2. |
Appointment by Head of State |
| 3. |
United Kingdom |
| 4. |
Australia |
| 5. |
Australia-State Courts |
| 6. |
Australia-Views of Sir Garfield Barwick |
| 7. |
Canada |
| 8. |
U.S.A Supreme Cour |
| 9. |
U.S.A. |
| 10. |
U.S.A State Courts |
| 11. |
U.S.S.R |
| 12. |
France |
| 13. |
West Germany |
| 14. |
Japan |
| 15. |
Certain Commonwealth countries providing for Judicial Service Commission |
| 16,17. |
(Sri Lanka) Ceylon |
| 18. |
Analysis |
| Chapter 4 |
Historical Background |
| 4.1,2 |
Government of India Act, 1935 |
| 3. |
Union Constitution Committee, and ad hoc Committee on Supreme Court |
| 4,5. |
Memorandum of Constitutional Adviser |
| 6. |
Drafting Committee |
| 7. |
Dr. Ambedkar's view |
| 8. |
High Court Judges |
| 9. |
Variation in above description in regard to High Court common to two States |
| Chapter 5 |
Constitutional Provisions and The Present Practice |
| 5.1,2 |
Articles 124 and 217 |
| 3. |
Article 224-Additional and acting Judges |
| 4,5. |
Present practice |
| 6. |
Summary of present practice by study team |
| 7. |
Variation in above description in regard to High Court common to two States |
| 8. |
View expressed by Chief Justice of Madras in 1947 |
| 9. |
Impression about appointment otherwise than on merit-14th Report |
| 10. |
Debate in Rajya Sabha on 14th Report |
| 11. |
Action taken by Government |
| 12. |
Study Team of the Administrative Reforms Commission |
| 13. |
Role of State Governments-View of Study Team |
| 14. |
View of Administrative Reforms Commission |
| 15. |
View of High Courts Arrears Committee |
| Chapter 6 |
Recommendations as to Method of Appointment of High Court Judges |
| 6.1 |
Views of High Courts as to existing Scheme |
| 2. |
Present scheme sound |
| 3. |
Initiative |
| 4. |
Recommendation in 79th Report |
| 5. |
Consultation by Chief Justice with two seniormost colleagues |
| 6,7. |
Age for appointment to High Court |
| 8. |
Other points concerning eligibility |
| 9. |
Selection on ground of religion, caste or region not to be encouraged |
| 10. |
Forwarding of the recommendation of the Chief Justice |
| 11. |
Suggestion in 79th Report reiterated |
| 12. |
Meetings between Chief Justice and Chief Minister |
| 13. |
Recommendation made by Chief Justice and two seniormost colleagues |
| 14. |
Role of Chief Justice |
| 15. |
Suggestion as to number of names to be suggested by the Chief Justice not accepted |
| 16,17. |
Forwarding of papers to Union Minister of Law & Justice |
| 18. |
Chief Justice of High Court-Seniormost Judge normally to be appointed |
| 19. |
Appointment of Chief Justice from outside |
| 20. |
Tenure of Chief Justice |
| 21. |
Appointment of one-third judges from outside State |
| 22. |
Benefit expected to accrue |
| 23. |
Attracting competent persons from outside-possibility of |
| 24,25. |
Modality of implementing |
| 26. |
Proposed scheme not intended to be rigid |
| 27. |
Consultative panel |
| 28. |
Proposal for Judges' Appointment Commission not favoured |
| 29. |
Panel of Chief Justice and four seniormost colleagues to be consulted in case of supersession |
| 30. |
Transfer of High Court Judges |
| 31. |
Constitutional aspect |
| 32. |
Desirability of panel |
| Chapter 7 |
Recommendations as to Method of Appointments to the Supreme Court as Judges |
| 7.1 |
Amplitude of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court |
| 2. |
Need to appoint persons of the highest calibre |
| 3. |
Reputation for independence and detachment-Importance of |
| 4. |
Persons with political affiliations |
| 5. |
Importance of dispassionate approach in India |
| 6. |
Consultation by Chief Justice of India with his seniormost colleagues |
| 7,8. |
Age for appointment to Supreme Court |
| 9. |
Principle of seniority |
| 10. |
Representation of region |
| Chapter 8 |
Conclusion |
|
Qualities of a Judge |
| Chapter 9 |
Summary of Recommendations |
|
General |
|
Appointment of High Court Judges |
|
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges |
| Appendix 1 |
Circuit Judges Nomination Commission in U.S.A. |
| 1. |
Circuit Judges Nomination Commission in U.S.A |
| 2. |
Functions of the Panel in U.S.A |
| 3. |
Standards for selection |
| 4,5. |
Appointment to panels will end thirty days after submission of the panel's report |
| Appendix 2 |
Questionnaire Issued by The Law Commission of India |
|
Note |
|
Apart from the above the following suggestions are made |
|
It is requested that your views may be expressed on the following points |
| Appendix 3 |
Tabulation of Replies to The Questionnaire |
|
Question No. 1 |
|
Question No. 2 |
|
Question No. 3 |
|
Question No. 4 |
|
Question No. 5 |
|
Question No. 6 |
|
Question No. 7 |
|
Question No. 8 |
|
Question No. 9 |
|
Question No. 10 |
|
Question No. 11 |
|
Question No. 12 |
|
Question No. 13 |
|
Question No. 14 |
|
Question No. 15 |
|
Question No. 16 |
|
Question No. 17 |
|
Question No. 18 |
|
Question No. 19 |
|
Question No. 20 |
