Bond Law Review

Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 8

2004

Appointment of Judges: A Key Issue of Judicial

Independence
Sarkar Ali Akkas
University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr

This Commentary is brought to you by the Faculty of Law at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bond Law Review by an
authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository Coordinator.
Appointment of Judges: A Key Issue of Judicial Independence
Abstract
This comment emphasises the importance of the mechanisms for appointment of judges in maintaining
judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary. It argues that the power of appointment of
judges should not be vested exclusively in the executive government.

The paper examines the basic nature of the principal mechanisms for appointment of judges operating in
different countries of the world. Particularly, it analyses the main strengths and weaknesses of the elective
system of judicial selection and the system of appointing judges through parliamentary approval, consultation
with the judiciary and legal profession and an independent commission. It concludes that the appointment of
judges by using an independent commission may be considered an acceptable and effective mechanism for
judicial appointments.

Keywords
appointment of judges, independence of judiciary, national appointment mechanisms

This commentary is available in Bond Law Review: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol16/iss2/8

 COMMENT

APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL

INDEPENDENCE

By Sarkar Ali Akkas

This comment emphasises the importance of the mechanisms for

appointment of judges in maintaining judicial independence and public
confidence in the judiciary. It argues that the power of appointment of
judges should not be vested exclusively in the executive government.

The paper examines the basic nature of the principal mechanisms for
appointment of judges operating in different countries of the world.
Particularly, it analyses the main strengths and weaknesses of the
elective system of judicial selection and the system of appointing judges
through parliamentary approval, consultation with the judiciary and
legal profession and an independent commission. It concludes that the
appointment of judges by using an independent commission may be
considered an acceptable and effective mechanism for judicial
appointments.

Introduction

The appointment of judges is an important aspect of judicial independence which

requires that in administering justice judges should be free from all sorts of direct
or indirect interference or influences. The principle of the independence of the
judiciary seeks to ensure the freedom of judges to administer justice impartially,
without any fear or favour. This freedom of judges has a close relationship with
judicial appointment because the appointment system has a direct bearing on the
impartiality, integrity and independence of judges.1

It is widely recognised by jurists and commentators that public

confidence in the judiciary is essential for the maintenance of judicial

LLB (Hons), LLM (Rajsh), PhD (University of Wollongong); Associate Professor,

Department of Law and Justice, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi-6205, Bangladesh.
1 Shimon Shetreet, Judges on Trial (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
1976), p 46.

200
 APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

independence. An important requirement of sustaining public

confidence in the judiciary is the openness and transparency in
appointing judges. Openness and transparency in making
appointments essentially depend on the mechanisms for appointment
of judges. The mechanisms for judicial appointment plays an
important role in selecting the persons having the professional skills
and qualities that are required for judges in an independent judiciary.
This paper seeks to examine the nature of the mechanisms for judicial
appointment which exist around the world. Its main purpose is to
analyse how far the existing mechanisms for judicial appointment are
effective in maintaining judicial independence and public confidence
in the judiciary.

Mechanisms for Judicial Appointment

Mechanisms for judicial appointment are important factors in appointing judges.

In any society, the appointment of judges involves some formal and informal
practices. The whole system depends largely on the political culture and social
values of a society. Consequently, mechanisms for judicial appointment differ
between jurisdictions. There are no standardised systems of appointment.2
Whatever mechanism is used in any particular country, it should be transparent
and open to public scrutiny. Transparency and public scrutiny in the mechanisms
for judicial appointment are of paramount importance to ensure appointment of
the best available persons to judicial office and to enhance public confidence in the
judiciary.

Mechanisms for judicial appointment operating in some different countries may be

classified under two sub-headings: elective and appointive systems.

Elective System

The elective system has two basic models, popular election and election by the
legislature. Under the popular election model, judges are elected on the basis of
either partisan election or non-partisan election.

In the United States, the model of popular election is employed in selecting judges
of some states, and a mixed system that combines the features of both
appointment and popular election is employed in other States.3 The model of
election by the legislature is employed in a few states of the United States, in the

2 Eleni Skordaki, Judicial Appointments: An International Review of Existing Models

(The Law Society, London, 1991), p 12.
3 Henry J Abraham, The Judicial Process (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986),
pp 38-39; see also Robert J Martineau, Appellate Justice in England and the United
States: A Comparative Analysis (William S Hein & Co, Inc, New York, 1990), p 83.

201
 (2004) 16.2 Bond Law Review

election of Federal judges in Switzerland and in the election of judges of the

German Federal Constitutional Court.4

At one time, a majority of American States employed the elective system of

selecting judges, but during the latter part of the nineteenth century, the general
trend began to move away from the elective system.5 Now only nine states use
partisan election, twelve states use non-partisan election, five states use election
by the legislature and nine states use combined merit selection and different
election methods.6

Proponents of the elective system offer two predominant arguments.

First, since judges are periodically required to submit themselves to
the electorate, it ensures accountability of judges. Secondly, judges
make law and, therefore, they should be selected or chosen by the
people who will be subject to or affected by those laws.7

Opponents of the elective system argue that this system does not
consider any formal qualifications and competence for the persons to
be appointed as judges. In partisan election systems, political
considerations are instrumental in the selection process and judges are
selected on campaign expertise rather than merit.8 In some states of
the United States with a view to being elected as a judge a candidate
must not only participate in a party campaign, but must almost
constantly be active in party politics.9 The opponents of the elective
system also argue that most voters are not competent to evaluate the
candidates' qualifications and it may result in the election of
candidates who are not best-qualified.10

4 Shimon Shetreet, 'Who will Judge: Reflections on the Process and Standards of
Judicial Selection' (1987) 61 Australian Law Journal 766 at 768; see also Carl Baar,
'Comparative Perspectives on Judicial Selection Processes' in Appointing Judges:
Philosophy, Politics and Practice (Ontario Law Commission, Ontario, 1991), p 146.
5 Marvin Comisky and Philip C Patterson, The Judiciary - Selection, Compensation,
Ethics and Discipline (Quorum Books, New York, 1987), p 7; see also Shetreet, above n
4, p 768.
6 American Judicature Society, Judicial Selection Methods in the States (April 2002)
<http://www.ajs.org/select11.htm> 8 June 2002 (Copy on file with author).
7 Comisky & Patterson, above n 5, p 8; see also Peter D Webster, Selection and
Retention of Judges: Is there one best Method? (1995) 23 Florida State University
Law Review 1 at 17.
8 K E Scheuerman, Rethinking Judicial Elections (1993) 72 Oregon Law Review 459 at
460-461.
9 J D Fabian, The Paradox of Elected Judges: Tension in the American Judicial System
(2001) 15 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 155 at 167.
10 Webster, above n 7, at 14-15; see also M W Barnett, The 1997-98 Florida Constitution
Revision Commission: Judicial Election or Merit Selection (2000) 52 Florida Law
Review 411 at 418.

202
 APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Appointive System

The appointive system of judicial appointment is widely employed all over the
world. Under this system appointments to judicial office are made by the executive
government. The Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice [Montreal
Declaration] 1983 provides:

Participation in judicial appointments by the Executive is

consistent with judicial independence, so long as appointments of
judges are made in consultation with members of the judiciary and
the legal profession, or by a body in which members of the judiciary
and the legal profession participate.11

The principle of judicial independence requires that the power of

appointment of judges should not be vested exclusively in the executive
government. This is because if the executive government enjoys an
exclusive privilege in selecting judges, a risk always exists of misuse of
the power of appointment. Sometimes political or other considerations
may prevail over the merit criteria for appointments. Thus by
facilitating nepotism and political favouritism the quality of the
judiciary might be weakened. Judges who obtain their position as a
result of executive discretion or favour could be obligated to serve the
interests of their appointing authority in a manner which might
undermine judicial independence.12

Therefore, the appointment of judges exclusively by the executive

government is not well accepted by jurists and commentators. The
exclusive executive power to appoint judges may be reduced by
involving other mechanisms including parliamentary approval,
consultation with the judiciary and legal profession, and use of an
independent commission.

Parliamentary Approval

Under this mechanism the executive government initially selects the candidates
for judicial office, but makes formal appointments only when the selections are
approved by parliament. For example, in the United States the President

11 Montreal Declaration 1983, Art 2.14(b). The Montreal Declaration was adopted at the
first World Conference on the Independence of Justice held at Montreal on 10 June
1983.
12 Eric Colvin, 'The Executive and the Independence of the Judiciary' (1986-1987) 51
Saskatchewan Law Review 22 at 239-240; see also Martin L Friedland, A Place Apart:
Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada (Canadian Judicial Council,
Toronto, 1995), p 233.

203
 (2004) 16.2 Bond Law Review

nominates and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate appoints
federal judges.13

Parliamentary approval provides a check on the power of the executive and there
is scope for public scrutiny of the appointment process.14 Nevertheless, this system
has some inherent defects. Firstly, parliament has nothing to do with the initial
stages of selecting candidates. Since the initial selection of candidates is a vital
issue in appointing judges and it is exclusively vested in the executive, this system
may not be effective to control pre-eminent political or other irrelevant
considerations in selecting candidates for judicial office. Rather it may foster an
increasing tendency to introduce political bargaining.15 Secondly, although the
requirement of approval by parliament may impose some restrictions on the
discretion of the executive government, it may not be effective to change the basic
form of political infighting. Moreover, it may result in the kind of coalition
building behaviour common in other legislative matters.16 Thirdly, if the party in
power commands a majority in parliament, political patronage may still be a
strong factor in appointing judges.17

Therefore, though parliamentary approval has some implications for checking

exclusive executive power in appointing judges and making the appointment
process open to the public through parliament, it has serious drawbacks. The
parliamentary mechanism is transparent and open to public scrutiny, but if there
is a majority in Parliament, nothing can be done: even if the public does not
approve of the appointment.

Consultation with Judiciary and Legal Profession

The executive government may appoint judges in consultation with the senior
judiciary and legal profession. Generally, senior members of the judiciary and
legal profession are consulted, and the consultations may be formal or informal.

Judges are in a position to assess the performance of lawyers who are

to be appointed to judicial office. Therefore, consultation with

13 Constitution of the United States of America, Art II, s 2.

14 Christopher N Kendall, Appointing Judges: Australian Judicial Reform Proposal in
Light of Recent North American Experience' (1997) 9 Bond Law Review 175 at 182;
see also Richard Devlin, A Wayne MacKay & Natasha Kim, Reducing the Democratic
Deficit: Representation, Diversity and the Canadian Judiciary, or Towards a Triple P
Judiciary (2000) 38 Alberta Law Review 734 at 825-826.
15 Michael Kirby, 'Models of Appointment and Training of Judges - A Common Law
Perspectives', a paper presented in a seminar on Legal Institutions in Transition held
in Belfast, Northern Ireland, 8 June 1999
<http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/judicial.htm> 24 May 2001 (Copy on file
with author) [26].
16 Baar, above n 4, p 146.
17 Devlin, MacKay & Kim, above n 14, at 826.

204
 APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

members of the higher judiciary is very significant in appointing the

best-qualified persons to judicial office. It is an important means to
strengthen the independence of the judiciary.18

Consultation with members of the legal profession is also very

important. A body representing the legal profession may be able to
assess the character and ability of the lawyers to be appointed as
judges.19 It can help to select suitable persons for judicial office.

Therefore, the consultation system has significant implications for the

quality of the judiciary and public confidence in it. However, it has a
serious limitation, because the efficacy of consultations depends mostly
on the attitude of the executive government. It could be that after
consultation with the judiciary and legal profession the executive
government will ignore the opinion given by them.20 Thus the ultimate
weight of the consultation system is dependent on the executive. If the
executive is reluctant to give due consideration to the advice of the
judiciary and legal profession, this system is useless. In fact,
consultation should be an effective consultation and in this regard the
Indian system of consultation with the judiciary is worth
consideration.

In respect of consultation with the judiciary a significant system was

introduced in India by a decision of the Supreme Court. Under the
Indian Constitution, the President of India appoints all judges of the
Supreme and High Courts including the Chief Justices after
consultation with different functionaries as follows:

(1) In appointing the Chief Justice of India, the President consults such of the
judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, as he or she may deem necessary
for the purpose.21

(2) In appointing other judges of the Supreme Court, the President consults such
of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as he or she may deem
necessary, but consultation with the Chief Justice of India is mandatory.22

(3) In appointing the Chief Justice of a High Court, the President is under an
obligation to consult the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State.23

18 Baar, above n 4, p 149.

19 Sir Harry Gibbs, 'The Appointment and Removal of Judges' (1987) 17 Federal Law
Review 141 at 145.
20 Sir Harry Gibbs, 'The Appointment of Judges' (1987) 61 Australian Law Review 7 at
11.
21 Constitution of India, Art 124(2).
22 Constitution of India, Art 124(2).

205
 (2004) 16.2 Bond Law Review

(4) In appointing the puisne judges of a High Court, the President consults the
Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the High
Court.24

The constitutional provision of consultation was an important issue of

interpretation in a series of decisions of the Indian Supreme Court. In Gupta v
President of India25 popularly known as the First Judges Case, the Supreme Court
observed that the President was obliged to consult the Chief Justice, but the
opinion of the Chief Justice was not binding upon the President.

In 1993, this decision was overruled in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record

Association v Union of India26 known as the Second Judges Case which held that
in the case of a difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and the President,
the opinion of the Chief Justice shall prevail and no judge should be appointed
without the concurrence of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, however, should
consult the next two senior judges of the Supreme Court. The Court held:

The process of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High
Courts is an integrated participatory consultative process for selecting the
best and most suitable persons available for appointment; and all the
constitutional functionaries must perform this duty collectively with a view
primarily to reach [sic] an agreed decision, subserving the constitutional
purpose, so that the occasion of primacy does not arise. In the event of
conflicting opinions by the constitutional functionaries, the opinion of the
judiciary symbolised by the view of the Chief Justice of India, and formed
in the manner indicated has primacy. In exceptional case alone, for
stated strong cogent reasons, disclosed to the Chief Justice of India,
indicating that the recommendee is not suitable for appointment, that
appointment recommended by the Chief Justice of India may not be made.
However, if the stated reasons are not accepted by the Chief Justice of India
and the other Judges who have been consulted in the matter, on reiteration
of the recommendation by the Chief Justice of India, the appointment
should be made as a healthy convention.27

In July 1998, the President of India asked for the advisory opinion of the Supreme
Court on various areas of the judgment of 1993 including the issue of
consultation.28 In October 1998, the Supreme Court in its advisory opinion

23 Constitution of India, Art 217(1).

24 Constitution of India, Art 217(1).
25 AIR 1982 SC 149.
26 AIR 1994 SC 268.
27 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India AIR 1994 SC 268,
[508].
28 Under Art 143(D) of the Constitution of India, President K.R. Narayanan made the
Reference to the Supreme Court on 23 July 1998. The Supreme Court disposed of the
Presidential Reference by its Advisory Opinion on 28 October 1998 in Re Presidential
Reference, AIR (1999) SC 1.

206
 APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

confirmed the primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion over that of the President in
appointing judges. The Court, however, observed that the sole, individual opinion
of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute consultation within the meaning
of Arts 217 and 222(1) of the Constitution. In appointing judges to the Supreme
Court, the Chief Justice must make a recommendation in consultation with the
four most senior puisne judges of the Supreme Court. In the case of appointments
to the High Courts, the Chief Justice must consult the two most senior puisne
judges of the Supreme Court. The views of the puisne judges should be in writing
and should be conveyed to the [President] by the Chief Justice of India along with
his [or her] views. The Supreme Court further observed that the Chief Justice is
under an obligation to follow the norms and requirements of the consultation
process, and recommendations made by him or her without complying with the
norms and requirements of the consultation process are not binding upon the
President.29

Use of an Independent Commission

The use of an independent commission in appointing judges is the most acceptable

mechanism among the commentators in the contemporary world.30 The Beijing
Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA
Region [Beijing Statement] 1995 states:

In some societies, the appointment of judges, by, with the consent of, or
after consultation with a Judicial Service Commission has been seen as a
means of ensuring that those chosen as judges are appropriate for the
purpose. Where a Judicial Service Commission is adopted, it should
include representatives of the higher judiciary and the independent legal
profession as a means of ensuring that judicial competence, integrity and
independence are maintained.31

The commission system is operating well in different countries including Canada,

South Africa and in many jurisdictions of the United States.32 There are also
judicial appointment committees in Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and the

29 Re Presidential Reference, AIR (1999) SC 1, 16.

30 Baar, above n 4, p 153.
31 Beijing Statement 1995, Art 15. The 6th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the
Pacific unanimously adopted the Beijing Statement on 19 August 1995.
32 American Judicature Society (AJS) reported in April 2002 that Judicial Nominating
Commission is used for all terms of appointment to all courts of Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming.
It is also used for midterm vacancies on some or all levels of court in Alabama,
Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and
Wisconsin. For details of the Report, see Judicial Selection Methods in the States
<http://www.ajs.org/select11.html> 8 June 2002(Copy on file with author).

207
 (2004) 16.2 Bond Law Review

Netherlands.33 Such commissions and committees are entrusted with the task of
either making the actual selection of the candidates, or making recommendations
only, or providing a shortlist outside of which appointments should not be made
by the executive without justifying the reasons for doing so.34

The effectiveness of the commission system depends on the composition

of the commission and the system used by it. The commission may be
constituted by senior judges, senior lawyers and distinguished legal
academics. Community representatives and parliamentary
representatives may also be included.35

The commission system can provide a stronger form of scrutiny of

prospective candidates for judicial office.36 It can ensure the selection
of the best-qualified candidates for judicial office, if the commission
uses a fair and non-discriminatory selection process. In addition, if
the system used by the commission is transparent and open to public
scrutiny, it can reduce the exclusive executive control over judicial
appointments and maintain public confidence in the appointment
system. Thus, it is likely to increase transparency and accountability
and to remove improper political control or other irrelevant
considerations from the appointment system.37

In respect of the composition of the commission and the system that

may be used by it, the South African Model of a Judicial Service
Commission is an important example. The South African Commission
established under the Constitution of 1996 consists of the following
members:

(a) the Chief Justice, who presides at the meetings of the Commission;
(b) the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal;
(c) one Judge President designated by the Judges President;
(d) the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice, or
an alternate designated by that cabinet member;

33 C Blair, Judicial Appointments (Criminal Justice Review Group, Belfast, 2000) 59

<http://www.ireland.com/newspapers/special/2000/justice/05.pdf> 5 July 2001 (Copy on
file with author).
34 Michael Lavarch, Judicial Appointments - Procedure and Criteria (Discussion Paper,
Attorney General's Department, Canberra, 1993), p 22.
35 Kate Malleson, The New Judiciary (Ashgate, Aldershot, 1999), p 133; see also M Spry,
'Executive and High Court Appointments', Research Paper, Parliamentary Library,
Australia, (2000) [91] <http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp> 24 May 2001 (Copy on
file with author).
36 Lavarch, above n 34, p 23.
37 Ibid; see also Kendall, above n 14 at 184; Malleson, above n 35, pp 128, 136, 152.

208
 APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES: A KEY ISSUE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

(e) two practising advocates nominated from within the advocates

profession to represent the profession as a whole, and appointed by
the President;
(f) two practising attorneys nominated from within the attorneys
profession to represent the profession as a whole, and appointed by
the president;
(g) one teacher of law designated by teachers of law at South African
universities;
(h) six persons designated by the National Assembly;
(i) four permanent delegates to the National Council of Provinces
designated together by the Council with a supporting vote of at least
six provinces;
(j) four persons designated by the President as head of the national
executive, after consulting the leaders of all the parties in the
National Assembly; and
(k) when considering matters relating to a specific High Court, the
Judge President of that division and the Premier, or an alternate
designated by the Premier, of the province concerned.38

Evidently, the South African Commission consists of judges, the Minister of

Justice, practising and academic lawyers, members of the National Assembly
including a substantial number of opposition members, members of the Provincial
parliaments, persons nominated by the President of South Africa after consulting
leaders of all political parties represented in the National Assembly and in some
cases the Premier of the Province or the Premiers nominee. Thus the composition
of the Commission is representative in nature and is not under the exclusive
control of the executive government.

The system used by the South African Judicial Service Commission in appointing
judges is credited with having a fair degree of openness. The Commission
identifies a list of meritorious candidates by advertising judicial vacancies and
interviewing the short-listed candidates in public, as if in open court.39 It must
prepare a list of nominees with three names more than the number of
appointments to be made, and submit the list to the President who may make
appointments from the list.40 The President must advise the Judicial Service
Commission, with reasons, if any of the nominees are unacceptable and any
appointment remains to be made.41 The Commission then must supplement the

38 Constitution of South Africa, s 178.

39 Hugh Corder, Seeking Social Justice? Judicial Independence and Responsiveness in a
Changing South Africa, in Russel PH and OBrien DM (ed) Judicial Independence in
the Age of Democracy: Critical perspective from around the world (University Press of
Virginia, London, 2001), p198.
40 Constitution of South Africa, s 174(4)(a-b).
41 Constitution of South Africa, s 174(4)(b).

209
 (2004) 16.2 Bond Law Review

list with further nominees and the President must make the remaining
appointments from the supplemented list.42

Conclusion

All mechanisms for judicial appointment may have some advantages and
disadvantages and therefore, no particular system can be treated as the best
system. Despite this, in order to maintain public confidence in the appointment
system and to ensure judicial independence the commission system is perhaps a
very effective mechanism for judicial appointment. However, to ensure the
effectiveness of this mechanism the commission should be representative in
nature comprising members of the executive, legislature, judiciary, legal
profession and lay persons. In addition, it should be ensured that the commission
uses a system which is transparent and open to public scrutiny. In this regard the
composition and working system of the South African Judicial Service Commission
may be an acceptable model. Such a mechanism may be very effective to ensure
the appointment of the best-qualified people to judicial office.

42 Constitution of South Africa, s 174(4)(c).

210