This case is also known as the Third Judges Case, as it clarified the principles laid down in the Second Judges Case (1993) regarding the collegium system for judicial appointments.
Bench
A 9-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:
- Justice S.P. Bharucha
- Justice M.K. Mukherjee
- Justice S.B. Majmudar
- Justice Sujata V. Manohar
- Justice G.T. Nanavati
- Justice S. Saghir Ahmad
- Justice K. Venkataswami
- Justice B.N. Kirpal
- Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Facts
- The case originated from a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, which allows the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important legal issues.
- The President of India, K.R. Narayanan, referred nine specific questions to the Supreme Court for clarification regarding the interpretation of Articles 124, 217, and 222 of the Constitution, which govern the appointment and transfer of judges.
- The reference was made due to doubts and confusion arising from the judgment in the Second Judges Case (1993), which had introduced the collegium system for judicial appointments.
The nine questions referred by the President were:
- Whether the expression “consultation with the Chief Justice of India” in Articles 217(1) and 222(1) requires consultation with a plurality of judges in forming the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, or whether the sole individual opinion of the Chief Justice of India constitutes consultation.
- Whether the transfer of judges is judicially reviewable, considering the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that such transfers are not justiciable on any ground except for limited judicial review.
- Whether Article 124(2) (which deals with Supreme Court appointments) requires the Chief Justice of India to consult only the two senior-most judges or whether there should be wider consultation according to past practice.
- Whether the Chief Justice of India can act alone, without consulting other judges, while considering materials and information from the Government of India regarding the non-appointment of a judge recommended for appointment.
- Whether the Chief Justice of India’s consultation with judges should be limited only to those who belong to the concerned High Court or should also include those transferred from other High Courts.
- Whether in cases where senior High Court judges are overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court, the reasons for such departure from seniority must be recorded in respect of each such judge.
- Whether the Government of India is entitled to demand written opinions of the judges consulted and whether such written opinions should be transmitted to the Government along with the Chief Justice of India’s recommendation.
- Whether the Chief Justice of India is obligated to follow the norms and consultation process before making a recommendation.
- Whether any recommendations made by the Chief Justice of India without following the prescribed norms and consultation process are binding on the Government of India.
Issues
- Whether the collegium system required consultation with a larger group of judges rather than just the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most judges.
- Whether judicial review is applicable in cases of transfer of High Court judges.
- Whether the executive can override a recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India.
- Whether written opinions of consulted judges must be shared with the Government.
- Whether departures from seniority in appointments must be recorded with reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court gave its opinion on the nine questions as follows:
- Plurality in Consultation: The Court held that consultation must be with a collegium of judges, not just the Chief Justice of India alone. The collegium for Supreme Court appointments must consist of the CJI and four senior-most judges, while for High Court appointments, it must include the CJI and two senior-most judges.
- Judicial Review of Transfers: The transfer of High Court judges is subject to limited judicial review. The recommendation must be made by the Chief Justice of India in consultation with four senior-most judges, and the views of the concerned High Court Chief Justice must be obtained.
- Scope of Consultation: The Chief Justice of India must consult judges familiar with the affairs of the High Court concerned, including those who have previously served in that High Court.
- Recording of Reasons for Departure from Seniority: If a senior High Court judge is overlooked for elevation, there must be strong, cogent reasons, and these must be recorded.
- Written Opinions: The government is entitled to receive written opinions of the judges consulted, and these must be transmitted to the Government along with the CJI’s recommendation.
- Binding Nature of Recommendations: If the CJI makes a recommendation following the prescribed norms, the government must act upon it. If the government returns a recommendation, but the collegium reiterates its recommendation, then the government is bound to accept it.
Observations
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial independence is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and that the executive must not have the final say in judicial appointments.
- The collegium system was expanded to ensure greater transparency and collective decision-making.
- The ruling further limited the executive’s role in judicial appointments, strengthening the judiciary’s control over its own composition.
- The Court emphasized that the collegium must function collectively and that no single individual, including the Chief Justice of India, could have absolute authority.
Decision
- The collegium system was upheld and expanded to include a larger group of judges in the decision-making process.
- Transfers of High Court judges were held to be judicially reviewable but only to a limited extent.
- The CJI’s recommendation became binding on the government once it was reiterated by the collegium.
- The government was required to accept judicial appointments if the collegium reiterated its recommendation.
Important Terms
- Article 124(2) (Appointment of Supreme Court Judges) – Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and senior judges.
- Article 217(1) (Appointment of High Court Judges) – High Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
- Article 222 (Transfer of High Court Judges) – The President can transfer a High Court judge to another High Court after consulting the CJI and the concerned Chief Justices.
- Collegium System – A system where judges recommend appointments and transfers, reducing executive interference. Expanded in this case to include the CJI and four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments.
- Judicial Independence – The principle that the judiciary must function free from executive or legislative influence.
- Basic Structure Doctrine – The constitutional principle that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution (like judicial independence) cannot be altered.
- Judicial Review of Transfers – The decision reaffirmed that transfers are reviewable only if due procedure is not followed.
- Consultation vs. Concurrence – The Court clarified that “consultation” means that the executive must accept the judiciary’s opinion if reiterated by the collegium.