The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) raised concerns that the NJAC undermined judicial independence by integrating executive members into the judicial appointments process. This inclusion was perceived as a threat because it potentially subjected judicial appointments to political influence, thereby eroding the autonomy and impartiality of the judiciary. Judicial independence is considered a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, and any interference by the executive could compromise the separation of powers and the judiciary's role as an independent arbiter .

The doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle ensuring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government operate independently without overstepping their respective boundaries. This doctrine was central to the debates regarding the NJAC as the SCAORA argued that the inclusion of executive members in the NJAC violated this principle. The participation of the executive in the judicial appointments process was seen as an encroachment on the judiciary's independence, thereby threatening the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes separation of powers as an essential feature .

The NJAC aimed to address the criticisms of the judicial appointments process being insular and lacking accountability by creating a more inclusive body for appointments. It institutionalized features such as having representatives not only from the judiciary but also from the executive and civil society. Specifically, the NJAC included the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Prime Minister, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons, thereby diversifying the decision-making process and introducing checks and balances to the formerly closed collegium system .

Article 50 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the State ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. This article is significant in maintaining judicial independence by preventing executive influence over judicial functions, preserving the judiciary's role as an impartial guardian of the Constitution. The relevance of Article 50 in the opposition against the NJAC lies in the argument that the NJAC's composition compromised this separation by incorporating executive members, thereby threatening the autonomy and impartiality necessary for a truly independent judiciary .

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment had a significant impact on the NJAC case through its establishment of the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine articulates that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, such amendments must not alter its fundamental framework. In the NJAC case, this doctrine was central as the Supreme Court evaluated whether the 99th Amendment violated the Constitution's basic structure, specifically its commitment to judicial independence. The judgment ultimately reinforced that changes undermining core constitutional principles are subject to invalidation, impacting the Court's decision to strike down the NJAC .

Articles 124A and 124B, introduced by the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, pertained to the establishment and functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Article 124A defined the composition and structure of the NJAC, which included representatives from the judiciary, executive, and other eminent members. Article 124B outlined the NJAC's responsibilities to recommend appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. These articles aimed to formalize and regulate the process, replacing the collegium system which solely comprised members of the judiciary, thus involving the executive in the judicial appointments in an effort to increase transparency and accountability in the process .

The primary motivations behind the establishment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2014 were to bring greater transparency, accountability, and public participation into the judicial appointments process. The NJAC aimed to address criticisms of the collegium system, which was critiqued for its lack of accountability and openness. The NJAC was composed of both judicial and executive members, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister of India, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons, in an attempt to integrate diversely represented voices and counter the insular nature of the collegium system .

The collegium system was criticized for its lack of transparency, accountability, and openness in the judicial appointment process. As the selection and appointment of judges were exclusively handled by members of the judiciary under this system, it gave rise to potential issues of favoritism and lack of public trust. These challenges prompted the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to incorporate diverse stakeholders, including the executive, in an effort to enhance accountability and introduce public participation in appointments, thereby addressing the criticisms leveled against the collegium system .

Judicial review plays a critical role in ensuring that constitutional amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. In the NJAC case, the Supreme Court's authority to review constitutional amendments was invoked to assess whether the 99th Amendment, which proposed the NJAC, infringed upon the basic structure by compromising judicial independence. The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution by prohibiting alterations that would destroy its essential features. Through judicial review, the Court reaffirmed that judicial independence is a fundamental part of the basic structure, and the involvement of the executive in judicial appointments was unconstitutional .

Involving eminent persons in the NJAC for judicial appointments could bring several benefits, including increased transparency, diverse perspectives, and reduced likelihood of insular decision-making by broadening the stakeholder base. This could enhance public trust and confidence in the judicial appointments process by aligning it more closely with societal expectations. However, challenges include the potential for these appointees to be influenced by political considerations or lack sufficient understanding of judicial requirements, which could undermine judicial independence. The selection criteria for these eminent persons would be crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure they meaningfully contribute to the appointments process .