A judge of the Appellate Division has been appointed chairman of the commission, and three secretaries to the government have also been included in the seven-member JSC. The compositional features of the commission have drawn attention of the jurists, since it was supposed to have more representatives from the senior judiciary than any other branch of the government. A former chief justice has said that the government has already violated the rules by following a principle of composition that does not give due importance to the judiciary.

The creation of the JSC is a fulfillment of one of the 12 directives of the Supreme Court issued on December 2, 1999. The court had asked the government to immediately form the commission. Its formation, however, has taken more than four years. But the decision to include more people from the executive branch in the JSC might just be deemed to have negated the spirit of separation of the judiciary, which would give it complete freedom from administrative control.

It follows that the decisions that were taken to constitute commissions for bringing about positive changes are being implemented, but the question of the government trying to retain control over them has not been resolved to the satisfaction of all. For example, the composition of the anti-graft-body had also caused uproar at the initial stage.

The point that must not be missed here is that a commission in itself cannot attain its objectives, unless it is given the needed structure and powers to function smoothly. In this instance, a judicial commission dominated by the bureaucrats cannot ensure its functional freedom. The need for breaking with the tradition of recruiting judges through the PSC was felt because it was not compatible with the ultimate objective of separating the judiciary. The government would be well-advised to restructure the JSC accordingly.