7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
National Judicial Appointment Commission
(NJAC)
By Sneha Mahawar - July 8, 2022
This article is written by Mohammad Sahil Khan of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya, National
Law University, Lucknow. The article comprehensively discusses the discarded National
Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC), the existing collegium system, and the issues
revolving around them.
This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.
Table of Contents
[Link] 1/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
1. Introduction
2. What was the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC)
2.1. Composition of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC)
2.2. Procedure for filling up vacancies
2.3. Procedure for selecting the Supreme Court judges
2.4. Procedure for selecting the High Court judges
2.5. Transfer of Chief Justices and High Court judges
2.6. Role of the President
3. What is the Collegium system
3.1. Composition of the Collegium system
3.2. Procedure for appointing Supreme Court judges
3.3. Procedure for appointing Chief Justice of High Courts
3.4. Procedure for appointing judges of the High Courts
4. Evolution of the collegium system
4.1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981)
4.2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (1993)
4.3. In re : Special Reference 1 of 1998
5. Why was the NJAC Act struck down
6. Issues with the current collegium system
7. The way forward
8. Conclusion
9. Frequently asked questions
10. References
Introduction
The Judiciary is one of the three important pillars of democracy, so it becomes extremely
pertinent to have the right system of appointing competent judges in order to maintain
the dignity of the bench. In India, the collegium system, introduced in 1993 by former
Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati, is followed in the appointment and transfer of
judges.
There is no Act passed or any constitutional provision in place with regards to the
collegium system; rather it has evolved over time through various landmark judgments
passed by the Supreme Court. The need for the National Judicial Appointment
Commission was aroused because many jurists criticised the existing collegium system,
stating that India is the only country where judges appoint themselves and have the
power of determining their transfers. In order to have a more transparent system, the
National Judicial Appointment Commission Act was enacted, but it eventually got struck
down by a five-judge bench, citing the Act as being unconstitutional.
What was the National Judicial Appointment
Commission (NJAC)
The National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) was a body which was proposed
to make appointments of Chief Justices, Supreme Court judges, and High Court judges in
a more transparent manner as compared to the existing collegium system and to replace
the collegium system. The NJAC was proposed via the National Judicial Appointments
Commission Bill, 2014 by the then Minister of Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad. The
bill was passed by both the houses; Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and also received the
President’s assent. The commission was established by the 99th Constitutional
[Link] 2/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Amendment Act, 2014. The Act proposed that the members of NJAC would be composed
of members from the legislative, judicial, and civil society.
Composition of the National Judicial Appointment
Commission (NJAC)
1. The Chief Justice of India would be the Chairman of the NJAC
2. Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
3. The Law and Justice Minister
4. Two eminent persons would be selected by a committee which would be composed of
the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition
Procedure for filling up vacancies
The Centre Government will make a reference to the NJAC in cases of vacancies
arising in the Supreme Court or High Courts.
Existing vacancies would be notified to the NJAC within thirty days of the
commencement of the Act.
A reference would be made to the NJAC six months prior to when a vacancy arises
due to the completion of a term.
In scenarios of vacancy due to the death or resignation of judges, a reference would
be made to the NJAC within thirty days of the occurrence of such events.
Procedure for selecting the Supreme Court judges
For the selection of the Chief Justice of India: NJAC would recommend the
senior-most judge of the honourable Supreme Court for the office of Chief Justice of
India.
For the selection of the Supreme Court judges: NJAC shall recommend the
names of judges on the basis of their merit and ability.
Veto power regulation: if any two members of the commission disapprove of any
name, NJAC would not recommend that judge.
Procedure for selecting the High Court judges
[Link] 3/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Chief Justice of High Courts: For the purpose of appointing the Chief Justice of a
High Court, NJAC would recommend judges on the basis of seniority, ability, and merit
combined.
Other judges of High Courts: NJAC would nominate names and then send those
names to the Chief Justice of the concerned high court for his views. The Chief Justice
would then consult with two senior-most judges or some other judges and advocates
if required. The views of the Chief Minister and Governor are also taken into
consideration before making the recommendation.
Veto power regulation: if any two members of the commission disapprove of any
name, NJAC would not recommend that judge.
Transfer of Chief Justices and High Court judges
The NJAC is the chief body responsible for making recommendations for the transfer of
High Court judges and Chief Justices.
Role of the President
The President has the power to ask NJAC to reconsider their recommendations.
However, if the NJAC makes a unanimous decision while reconsidering, then the
President has to make the appointment as per the NJAC’s recommendations.
What is the Collegium system
Prior to the inception of NJAC, judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court were
appointed by the provisions mentioned in Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of
India. Articles 124 and 217 state that the President shall appoint judges to the Supreme
Court and high courts after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other judges.
The concept of the collegium system was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in 1993,
and since then, judges in the higher judiciary are appointed through the collegium
system. The collegium system was created to maintain the basic structure of the
Constitution by keeping the judiciary independent and to ensure that the Chief Justice of
India does not impose his or her individual opinion regarding the appointment of judges,
but rather it is a collective opinion of the entire body.
Composition of the Collegium system
[Link] 4/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
1. A Supreme Court collegium comprises four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
and it is headed by the Chief Justice of India.
2. A High Court collegium comprises four senior-most judges and is headed by the Chief
Justice of that High Court.
3. The names that are recommended by the High Court collegium are first approved by
the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court collegium, and after that, it reaches
the government.
Procedure for appointing Supreme Court judges
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiates the process of appointment of Supreme Court
judges. The CJI deliberates with the collegium of the Supreme Court and also consults
with the senior judges of the court to which the recommended member belongs.
A file is created in which all the members with whom the consultation takes place
have to write their opinion regarding the appointment of the recommended person,
After the initial two processes, the recommendation made by the collegium is sent to
the Law Minister, who in turn sends it to the Prime Minister for advising the President.
Procedure for appointing Chief Justice of High Courts
When it comes to the appointment of Chief Justices, there is a policy that a Chief
Justice be appointed from outside of his or her respective state.
The Collegium set up for the High Court has the final say in the appointment of the
Chief Justice.
Procedure for appointing judges of the High Courts
The outgoing Chief Justice of the respective court initiates the process of appointment
of judges in deliberation with the two senior-most judges of that court.
After consultation and deliberation, the collegium of the High Court recommends the
name of the high court judges.
The recommendation made by the collegium is sent to the Chief Minister, who then
advises the Governor, and ultimately the recommendation reaches the Union Law
Minister.
Evolution of the collegium system
The formation of the collegium system owes its origin to the three landmark cases often
referred to as the “three judges case.”
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981)
Prior to the landmark case (First Judges Case), judges were appointed by the President
of India but he needed to consult with the Chief Justice of India and other judges. This
case empowered the executive in the judges’ appointment process. The key observation
[Link] 5/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
made in this case was that “consultation” should not be construed as “concurrence,”
which meant that the President is not bound to follow the opinion of the Chief Justice of
India in the judges’ appointment. It was also observed in this case that the transfer of
judges can also be refused due to “cogent reasons.”
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India, (1993)
A nine-judge bench was created for the landmark case (Second Judges Case) and in
this case, the bench went the other way round and they reversed their decision of the
‘First Judges Case.’ The judgement stated that the Chief Justice of India should be given
the primary role in the appointment process of judges. The court stated “justiciability”
and “primacy” as the main reasons behind the decision. The Supreme Court held that
“consultation” really means “concurrence” and a collegium system was introduced for the
appointment of judges. The reasoning behind the collegium system’s inception was that
it shows the collective opinion of the senior-most individuals involved in the process of
judicial appointment rather than an individual opinion.
In re : Special Reference 1 of 1998
The Third Judges Case case reiterated the supremacy of the judiciary over the
executive in the course of judicial appointment. On the President’s reference, the body of
the collegium system was expanded to a five-member body (for the Supreme Court
judges’ appointment), which would consist of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-
most judges. In the appointment of the High Court judges, the body of the collegium
system would consist of the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most judges.
Why was the NJAC Act struck down
The five-judge bench comprising Justice Madan Lokur, Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Adarsh
Kumar Goel, Justice Kurian Joseph, and Justice Jasti Chelameshwar struck down the
NJAC Act along with the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act in a 4:1 ratio. The NJAC Act
was termed unconstitutional and was struck down, citing it as having affected the
independence of the judiciary. The NJAC Act was repealed by a five-judge bench,
famously known as the Fourth Judges Case, 2015. The five-judge bench decided that
the collegium system would still be operative in the appointment of judges, although
they pointed out that the collegium system is not accurate and the process of ‘judges
appointing judges’ should be examined.
[Link] 6/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Every judge gave out their individual ratio decidendi, with each of them explaining their
individual reasoning behind coming to the conclusion. The crux of each of their ratios
was that the judiciary should be kept independent of the legislature and executive and
that they should not indulge in the process of appointing judges. The Hon. Justice J.S.
Khehar stated that “organic development of civil society has not as yet sufficiently
evolved.” While other judges supported Justice Khehar’s reasoning, Justice Chelameswar
held a different line of reasoning stating that “the judiciary cannot be the only
constitutional organ capable of protecting the liberties of the people.”
Justice Khehar raised crucial questions and directly attacked the merits of the NJAC Act.
Justice Khehar attacked the NJAC Act on following points:
The involvement of the legislature in the appointment of judges might lead to the
creation of a culture of ‘reciprocity.’ By reciprocity, Justice Khehar meant that judges
might have the feeling of having to pay back the political executive as a consideration
for their appointment to the post of judge and that it would lead to an environment
where the appointment of judges might be impacted due to political considerations.
Justice Khehar raised another strong point that the future judges appointed under
NJAC cannot be expected to be independent-minded if the Union Law Minister is the
member of the commission responsible for their appointment. Further reinstating his
point, Justice Khehar pointed out by giving examples that often there are cases that
come to the judiciary where there is the involvement of some political figures such as
the Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any other minister from the opposition as well; in
such scenarios, the presence of the Minister of Law and Justice as an ex-officio
member of NJAC is highly questionable.
The NJAC Act would compromise the principle of independence of the judiciary
guaranteed under the existing collegium system. The basic structure of the
Constitution enshrines that the judiciary is solely responsible for the appointment of
judges.
The NJAC Act provides arbitrary power to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister
and the leader of the Lok Sabha to appoint two eminent personalities into the NJAC
body.
Serious questions were raised regarding the applicability of veto power by the two
eminent personalities. Justice Khehar and Lokur opined that “these two persons could
together strike out an otherwise valid appointment.” They raised doubts regarding the
procedure of removal of these two people in case they are found to be abusing their
power.
Justice Madan Lokur, Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Kurian
Joseph found the NJAC Act to be unconstitutional, Justice Jasti Chelameshwar was
extremely vocal in supporting the Act. He found the NJAC Act absolutely constitutional
and meritorious. He deemed it to be a perfect substitution for the existing collegium
system. In a strongly worded dissent order, Justice Chelameshwar explained the benefits
of the NJAC Act.
[Link] 7/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Justice Chelameshwar pointed out that transparency is an extremely vital factor in
constitutional governance. He reasoned that it becomes all the more important in the
process of appointment. Justice Chelameshwar praised the NJAC Act for involving a
smooth and transparent process for the appointment of judges.
Collegium system’s opaqueness was blatantly expressed where he expressed that the
proceedings of the collegium are inaccessible to the public and, therefore, it lacks
transparency.
He supported Advocate General Mukul Rohtagi’s argument that the exclusion of
checks and balances principle leads to the destruction of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
Justice Chelameshwar maintained that the exclusion of the role of the government in
appointing the judges is unfair because it disturbs the checks and balances principle.
He further added that in a democratic setup, the executive cannot be completely
excluded.
In the dissent order, an example of the United States of America was given, where the
head of the Executive is conferred with the power to appoint the judges.
Justice Chelameshwar also supported the inclusion of the Law Minister in the
commission, reasoning that the executive with a vast amount of administrative
machinery is capable of making enormous and valuable contributions to the selection
process.
Issues with the current collegium system
NJAC was struck down citing it to be unconstitutional and void, but that does not mean
that the existing system is flawless. Even while striking down NJAC, the bench held that
the system of “judges appointing judges” is not accurate and needs to be reconsidered.
It has been 29 years since the establishment of the collegium system and a better
alternative is yet to be found. The main issues pertaining to the collegium system are:
[Link] 8/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
The collegium system does not provide any guidelines or criteria for the appointment
of the Supreme Court judges and it increases the ambit of favouritism.
In the collegium system, there are no criteria for testing the candidate or for doing a
background check to establish the credibility of the candidate. The absence of an
administrative body is also a reason for worry because it means that the members of
the collegium system are not answerable for the selection of any of the judges.
The ‘Second Judges Case’ established the supremacy of the judiciary over the
executive. This system disturbs the principle of check and balance. The check and
balance principle is necessary because it ensures that no organ of democracy is
exercising its power in an excessive manner.
NJAC was struck down for its unconstitutionality, but a closer look at the collegium
system tells us that even though the collegium system is not mentioned anywhere in
the Constitution, rather it has evolved over a period of time from different landmark
cases.
The collegium system lacks transparency.
Nepotism has been often witnessed in the judiciary due to a lack of criteria for the
appointment of judges. Nepotism leads to mediocrity due to biases in the judicial
setup.
The way forward
After analyzing both NJAC and the collegium system, it can be inferred that neither of
the methods is complete and both lack certain aspects. In the recent Winter Session of
the Parliament, the Minister of Law and Justice pointed out that the voices are growing in
favour of the re-introduction of the NJAC Bill. The Minister of Law and Justice (Kiren
Rijiju) lambasted the collegium system, stating that the method is non-transparent and
“does not justify the slightest intent with which the provision was made in the
Constitution”. The Law Minister also stated that many former judges and legal experts
are supporting the NJAC. However, legal jurists are divided on NJAC, with some
supporting it while others calling for amendments to the Act.
It is quite evident that neither the collegium system nor the NJAC is accurate; both have
some shortcomings. There are certain steps that can be taken in order to amend NJAC.
[Link] 9/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
1. NJAC needs to be amended to keep the judiciary independent. The earlier NJAC Act
gave power to the legislature and executive and thus interfered with the
independence of the judiciary.
2. According to Justice Deepak Gupta, retired senior civil servants need to be inducted
into the body appointing judges.
3. In the 2015 judgement, Justice J.S. Khehar raised issues regarding the involvement of
the Minister of Law and Justice in the commission appointing judges. So, any
bureaucrat or former civil servant should replace him in the commission.
4. Since the collegium system lacks transparency, the new system should have
transparency in the selection procedure.
5. The Supreme Court needs to lay down certain guidelines for appointing judges and
those guidelines should be strictly followed. Apart from that, all the notifications
should be issued in the public domain to make the process more transparent.
Conclusion
It is a sad state that an important pillar of democracy is crumbling owing to a lack of
system in the process of judicial appointment. Proactiveness has been missing in
resolving the issue since the collegium system came way back in 1993 and ever since it
has been questioned even though it has been almost 8 years since the introduction of
the NJAC Act. The matter is very critical and complex because, on the one hand, the
judiciary should act independently, but on the other hand, the legislature and the
executive cannot be completely excluded. The only reasonable solution is to amend NJAC
Act in a manner in which the powers of legislature and executive are diluted but at the
same time a guideline needs to be formed and the judicial appointment should be carried
out in its accordance to ensure the transparency and to give a methodical approach
towards the appointment of judges.
Frequently asked questions
1. When was the NJAC Act declared void?
The NJAC Act was struck down in 2015 by a five-judge bench in 4:1 ratio, citing the Act
to be unconstitutional.
2. Who were the judges on the bench in the Fourth Judges Case?
Justice Madan Lokur, Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Kurian
Joseph, and Justice Jasti Chelameshwar were on the bench to examine the
constitutionality of the NJAC Act.
3. When was collegium system introduced in India?
The Collegium system was introduced in the year 1993 by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the
landmark Second Judges Case.
4. Which Articles in the Constitution contains legal provisions for appointment of judges?
[Link] 10/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution deal with the appointment of judges in India.
References
1. [Link]
2537184/
2. [Link]
[Link]
3. [Link]
change-but-njac-is-not-the-answer/779758/
4. [Link]
court-and-high-court-upsc-
ias/#:~:text=The%20Collegium%20system%20in%20India,or%20by%20a%20Constitut
5. [Link]
the-appointment-of-judges-
2#:~:text=For%20Chief%20Justice%20of%20High,and%20two%20senior%2Dmost%20
6. [Link]
7. [Link]
Collegium-system/[Link]
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on
practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life
practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
[Link]
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.
[Link] 11/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this
form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!
FREE & ONLINE
3-Day Bootcamp On Crack IBPS Law Officer Exam
(Bank SO): Incredible Opportunity For Law Graduates
To Secure Jobs In Public Sector Banks
23rd to 25th July, 6 - 9 p.m IST each day
Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,
LawSikho
[Link] 12/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,
LawSikho
Register now
Name
Your Name
Email
Your Email
Country code Phone
Country Code
Your Phone
Country Code
[Link] 13/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
+91 - IN (India)
Country Code
+376 - AD (Andorra)
+971 - AE (United Arab
Emirates)
+93 - AF (Afghanistan)
+1268 - AG (Antigua And
Barbuda)
+1264 - AI (Anguilla)
+355 - AL (Albania)
+374 - AM (Armenia)
+599 - AN (Netherlands
Antilles)
+244 - AO (Angola)
+672 - AQ (Antarctica)
+54 - AR (Argentina)
+1684 - AS (American Samoa)
+43 - AT (Austria)
+61 - AU (Australia)
+297 - AW (Aruba)
+994 - AZ (Azerbaijan)
+387 - BA (Bosnia And
Herzegovina)
+1246 - BB (Barbados)
+880 - BD (Bangladesh)
+32 - BE (Belgium)
+226 - BF (Burkina Faso)
+359 - BG (Bulgaria)
+973 - BH (Bahrain)
+257 - BI (Burundi)
+229 - BJ (Benin)
+590 - BL (Saint Barthelemy)
+1441 - BM (Bermuda)
+673 - BN (Brunei
Darussalam)
+591 - BO (Bolivia)
+55 - BR (Brazil)
+1242 - BS (Bahamas)
+975 - BT (Bhutan)
+267 - BW (Botswana)
+375 - BY (Belarus)
+501 - BZ (Belize)
+1 - CA (Canada)
+61 - CC (Cocos (keeling)
Islands)
+243 - CD (Congo, The
Democratic Republic Of
The)
+236 - CF (Central African
Republic)
+242 - CG (Congo)
+41 - CH (Switzerland)
+225 - CI (Cote D Ivoire)
+682 - CK (Cook Islands)
+56 - CL (Chile)
[Link] 14/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
+237 - CM (Cameroon)
+86 - CN (China)
+57 - CO (Colombia)
+506 - CR (Costa Rica)
+53 - CU (Cuba)
+238 - CV (Cape Verde)
+61 - CX (Christmas Island)
+357 - CY (Cyprus)
+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)
+49 - DE (Germany)
+253 - DJ (Djibouti)
+45 - DK (Denmark)
+1767 - DM (Dominica)
+1809 - DO (Dominican
Republic)
+213 - DZ (Algeria)
+593 - EC (Ecuador)
+372 - EE (Estonia)
+20 - EG (Egypt)
+291 - ER (Eritrea)
+34 - ES (Spain)
+251 - ET (Ethiopia)
+358 - FI (Finland)
+679 - FJ (Fiji)
+500 - FK (Falkland Islands
(malvinas))
+691 - FM (Micronesia,
Federated States Of)
+298 - FO (Faroe Islands)
+33 - FR (France)
+241 - GA (Gabon)
+44 - GB (United Kingdom)
+1473 - GD (Grenada)
+995 - GE (Georgia)
+233 - GH (Ghana)
+350 - GI (Gibraltar)
+299 - GL (Greenland)
+220 - GM (Gambia)
+224 - GN (Guinea)
+240 - GQ (Equatorial Guinea)
+30 - GR (Greece)
+502 - GT (Guatemala)
+1671 - GU (Guam)
+245 - GW (Guinea-bissau)
+592 - GY (Guyana)
+852 - HK (Hong Kong)
+504 - HN (Honduras)
+385 - HR (Croatia)
+509 - HT (Haiti)
+36 - HU (Hungary)
+62 - ID (Indonesia)
+353 - IE (Ireland)
+972 - IL (Israel)
+44 - IM (Isle Of Man)
[Link] 15/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
+964 - IQ (Iraq)
+98 - IR (Iran, Islamic
Republic Of)
+354 - IS (Iceland)
+39 - IT (Italy)
+1876 - JM (Jamaica)
+962 - JO (Jordan)
+81 - JP (Japan)
+254 - KE (Kenya)
+996 - KG (Kyrgyzstan)
+855 - KH (Cambodia)
+686 - KI (Kiribati)
+269 - KM (Comoros)
+1869 - KN (Saint Kitts And
Nevis)
+850 - KP (Korea Democratic
Peoples Republic
Of)
+82 - KR (Korea Republic Of)
+965 - KW (Kuwait)
+1345 - KY (Cayman Islands)
+7 - KZ (Kazakstan)
+856 - LA (Lao Peoples
Democratic Republic)
+961 - LB (Lebanon)
+1758 - LC (Saint Lucia)
+423 - LI (Liechtenstein)
+94 - LK (Sri Lanka)
+231 - LR (Liberia)
+266 - LS (Lesotho)
+370 - LT (Lithuania)
+352 - LU (Luxembourg)
+371 - LV (Latvia)
+218 - LY (Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya)
+212 - MA (Morocco)
+377 - MC (Monaco)
+373 - MD (Moldova, Republic
Of)
+382 - ME (Montenegro)
+1599 - MF (Saint Martin)
+261 - MG (Madagascar)
+692 - MH (Marshall Islands)
+389 - MK (Macedonia, The
Former Yugoslav
Republic Of)
+223 - ML (Mali)
+95 - MM (Myanmar)
+976 - MN (Mongolia)
+853 - MO (Macau)
+1670 - MP (Northern Mariana
Islands)
+222 - MR (Mauritania)
+1664 - MS (Montserrat)
+356 - MT (Malta)
+230 - MU (Mauritius)
[Link] 16/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
+960 - MV (Maldives)
+265 - MW (Malawi)
+52 - MX (Mexico)
+60 - MY (Malaysia)
+258 - MZ (Mozambique)
+264 - NA (Namibia)
+687 - NC (New Caledonia)
+227 - NE (Niger)
+234 - NG (Nigeria)
+505 - NI (Nicaragua)
+31 - NL (Netherlands)
+47 - NO (Norway)
+977 - NP (Nepal)
+674 - NR (Nauru)
+683 - NU (Niue)
+64 - NZ (New Zealand)
+968 - OM (Oman)
+507 - PA (Panama)
+51 - PE (Peru)
+689 - PF (French Polynesia)
+675 - PG (Papua New Guinea)
+63 - PH (Philippines)
+92 - PK (Pakistan)
+48 - PL (Poland)
+508 - PM (Saint Pierre And
Miquelon)
+870 - PN (Pitcairn)
+1 - PR (Puerto Rico)
+351 - PT (Portugal)
+680 - PW (Palau)
+595 - PY (Paraguay)
+974 - QA (Qatar)
+40 - RO (Romania)
+381 - RS (Serbia)
+7 - RU (Russian Federation)
+250 - RW (Rwanda)
+966 - SA (Saudi Arabia)
+677 - SB (Solomon Islands)
+248 - SC (Seychelles)
+249 - SD (Sudan)
+46 - SE (Sweden)
+65 - SG (Singapore)
+290 - SH (Saint Helena)
+386 - SI (Slovenia)
+421 - SK (Slovakia)
+232 - SL (Sierra Leone)
+378 - SM (San Marino)
+221 - SN (Senegal)
+252 - SO (Somalia)
+597 - SR (Suriname)
+239 - ST (Sao Tome And
Principe)
+503 - SV (El Salvador)
[Link] 17/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
+963 - SY (Syrian Arab
Republic)
+268 - SZ (Swaziland)
+1649 - TC (Turks And Caicos
Islands)
+235 - TD (Chad)
+228 - TG (Togo)
+66 - TH (Thailand)
+992 - TJ (Tajikistan)
+690 - TK (Tokelau)
+670 - TL (Timor-leste)
+993 - TM (Turkmenistan)
+216 - TN (Tunisia)
+676 - TO (Tonga)
+90 - TR (Turkey)
+1868 - TT (Trinidad And
Tobago)
+688 - TV (Tuvalu)
+886 - TW (Taiwan, Province
Of China)
+255 - TZ (Tanzania, United
Republic Of)
+380 - UA (Ukraine)
+256 - UG (Uganda)
+1 - US (United States)
+598 - UY (Uruguay)
+998 - UZ (Uzbekistan)
+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican
City State))
+1784 - VC (Saint Vincent And
The Grenadines)
+58 - VE (Venezuela)
+1284 - VG (Virgin Islands,
British)
+1340 - VI (Virgin Islands,
U.s.)
+84 - VN (Viet Nam)
+678 - VU (Vanuatu)
+681 - WF (Wallis And Futuna)
+685 - WS (Samoa)
+381 - XK (Kosovo)
+967 - YE (Yemen)
+262 - YT (Mayotte)
+27 - ZA (South Africa)
+260 - ZM (Zambia)
+263 - ZW (Zimbabwe)
No results
I want to know more about the lawsikho courses
Yes
No
Register now
Bootcamp starting in
12
Days
[Link] 18/19
7/11/22, 4:28 PM National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) - iPleaders
1
HRS
31
MIN
51
SEC
Ramanuj Mukherjee CEO & Co-founder,
LawSikho
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,
LawSikho
[Link] 19/19
