A seven-judge bench held that "consultation" with the Chief Justice in appointing judges does not mean "concurrence", giving the executive the final say. The case is also a landmark for public interest litigation, because it relaxed the rule of locus standi and allowed lawyers to sue on matters of public importance. Justice P.N. Bhagwati wrote a leading opinion.
Executive primacy in appointments.
Liberalised locus standi for PIL.
Quick check: In the First Judges Case (1981), the Supreme Court held that "consultation" with the Chief Justice means:
Consultation with Parliament
Not concurrence; the executive has primacy
Concurrence; the Chief Justice has primacy
Consultation with a collegium of five
Answer: B.
1993
The Second Judges Case
SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
A nine-judge bench overruled S.P. Gupta and gave primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges. This created the collegium system. Justice J.S. Verma wrote the lead majority opinion; he later said the judgment had been misunderstood and misused.
Created the collegium system.
Overruled S.P. Gupta.
Quick check: The collegium system was created by which case?
The First Judges Case (1981)
The Second Judges Case (1993)
The Third Judges Case (1998)
The NJAC case (2015)
Answer: B.
1998
The Third Judges Case
In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998
On a Presidential reference under Article 143, a nine-judge bench clarified the collegium: for appointments to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice must consult the four senior-most judges; for High Court appointments, the two senior-most judges. This five-member collegium for the Supreme Court continues today.
Supreme Court collegium: CJI + four senior-most judges.
High Court appointments: CJI + two senior-most SC judges.
Arose from a Presidential reference.
Quick check: After the Third Judges Case, the Supreme Court collegium consists of:
The CJI and the four senior-most judges
The CJI, the Law Minister and two eminent persons
All judges of the Supreme Court
The CJI and the two senior-most judges
Answer: A.
16 October 2015
The NJAC Case (Fourth Judges Case)
SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
The 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2014 would have replaced the collegium with a six-member commission: the Chief Justice, two senior-most judges, the Law Minister and two "eminent persons". A five-judge bench struck both down 4:1, holding that the primacy of the judiciary in appointments is part of judicial independence, a basic feature. Justice J. Chelameswar dissented. The Court then asked for suggestions to improve the collegium's transparency.
Majority: J.S. Khehar, M.B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, A.K. Goel.
Dissent: J. Chelameswar.
The NJAC would have had six members.
Quick check: How many members would the National Judicial Appointments Commission have had?
Seven
Six
Nine
Five
Answer: B.
1999
The Memorandum of Procedure
The rulebook for appointments
The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), drawn up in 1999 after the Third Judges Case, sets out the steps for appointing and transferring judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. After the NJAC judgment, the government and the judiciary tried to revise it, but a revised MoP was never finalised.
Quick check: The Memorandum of Procedure governs:
Appointment and transfer of judges
Designation of Senior Advocates
Listing of cases
Removal of judges
Answer: A.
20 more entries under this heading
Collegium Resolutions Made Public · A step towards transparency
How a Judge Is Removed · Impeachment in all but name
Justice V. Ramaswami · The first removal motion to reach a vote
Justice Soumitra Sen · Impeached by the Rajya Sabha
Justice P.D. Dinakaran · Resigned before the inquiry ended
Justice Yashwant Varma · Cash at a judge's home
The In-House Procedure · The judiciary polices itself
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India · Judges and the anti-corruption law
Justice C.S. Karnan · The first sitting High Court judge jailed
Judges' Assets Made Public · A full court resolution
The CJI's Office Under RTI · CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life · A code of conduct for judges
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 · Civil and criminal contempt
The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 · Immunity for judicial acts
Retirement Ages of Judges · Sixty-five for the Supreme Court and 62 for High Courts
Ad Hoc High Court Judges under Article 224A · Retired judges recalled to clear backlogs
Transfer of High Court Judges · Article 222 allows transfers between High Courts
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill · A proposed law on judicial conduct that lapsed
Impeachment Notice against Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Over remarks on reservation in a judgment
Impeachment Motion against Justice S.K. Gangele · An inquiry committee found the allegations not proved
PlusAll 25 entries, and every heading in the LibraryYours from ₹1,499, till CLAT 2028See Plus
