Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1

This case is also known as the Fourth Judges Case, as it dealt with the constitutional validity of the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, which sought to replace the collegium system of judicial appointments with the NJAC.

Bench

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court:

• Justice J.S. Khehar
• Justice J. Chelameswar
• Justice Madan B. Lokur
• Justice Kurian Joseph
• Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Facts

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, was enacted to replace the collegium system with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for the appointment and transfer of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• The NJAC consisted of six members:
  1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) as Chairperson.
  2. Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  3. The Union Minister of Law and Justice.
  4. Two eminent persons, nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition.
• The NJAC sought to give the executive a greater role in judicial appointments and increase transparency.
• Several petitions were filed by Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and others, challenging the constitutional validity of the NJAC, arguing that it violated the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues

• Whether the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014, violated the basic structure doctrine by affecting the independence of the judiciary.
• Whether the collegium system should be retained or replaced with an alternative system of judicial appointments.
• Whether the inclusion of the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons in the NJAC diluted judicial primacy in appointments.
• Whether the role of the executive in judicial appointments created a conflict of interest, as the government itself is a litigant in most cases before the courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held:

• NJAC Unconstitutional: The Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act as unconstitutional, holding that they violated the basic structure doctrine by undermining the independence of the judiciary.
• Primacy of Judiciary in Appointments: The Court reaffirmed that judicial appointments must remain independent of executive influence. The collegium system was reinstated, ensuring that the judiciary retained control over its own composition.
• Executive’s Role Limited: The Court held that giving the executive a say in judicial appointments created a conflict of interest, as the government itself is a frequent litigant before the judiciary.
• Judicial Review of Appointment Process: The appointment and transfer of judges remain subject to judicial review to ensure fairness and transparency.
• Transparency in the Collegium System: The Court acknowledged concerns about lack of transparency in the collegium system and called for reforms to improve its functioning.

Observations

• The independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
• The presence of the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons in NJAC would allow the executive to veto judicial appointments, which violates the principle of judicial primacy.
• The Court emphasized that while judicial accountability is important, it cannot come at the cost of judicial independence.
• The collegium system is not perfect, but the solution is reform, not executive interference.

Decision

• The 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act were declared unconstitutional.
• The collegium system was restored.
• The Court recommended reforms to improve transparency and accountability in the collegium system.

Important Terms

1. Article 124 (Appointment of Supreme Court Judges) – Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and senior judges.
2. Article 217 (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.
3. 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.
4. Collegium System – A system where judges recommend appointments and transfers, reducing executive interference.
5. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) – A body introduced by the 99th Constitutional Amendment to replace the collegium system, but later struck down as unconstitutional.
6. Basic Structure Doctrine – A constitutional principle stating that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution (such as judicial independence) cannot be altered by amendments.
7. Judicial Independence – The principle that the judiciary should function free from executive or legislative influence.
8. Judicial Primacy – The concept that the judiciary must have the final say in its own appointments, rather than the executive or legislature.
9. Judicial Review – The power of courts to review and strike down laws or government actions that violate the Constitution.