SC ADV. ON RECORD ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA (1993) 4 SCC 441
FACTS
This case stemmed from a series of petitions contesting the constitutionality of the Constitution Act (99th Amendment) Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014. These acts aimed to replace the collegium system, which was previously used for appointing judges to higher judicial positions.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) played a significant role in this process, established to enhance transparency in the selection procedure. However, the court ruled that it violated fundamental principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, ultimately impacting the fundamental structure of the Constitution. A five-judge constitutional bench invalidated both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC.
The main issue addressed by the court was the confidentiality of candidates for judgeships. Justice Lokur expressed the view that the system failed to strike a balance between candidates' right to privacy and citizens' right to information. Under Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the constitution, the NJAC was instituted for the selection, appointment, and transfer of judges to higher positions, replacing the collegium system. The collegium, composed of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior justices of the supreme court, initially recommends candidates.
These recommendations are then endorsed by both the Supreme Court collegium and the Chief Justice of India. The case subsequently reaches the Government, which has the authority to conduct an investigation, often assisted by the Intelligence Bureau, regarding the promotion of a counsel to a judge. The Government may object only once, and if the collegium reiterates the nomination, the government must then grant approval.
In 2015, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the 99th Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act. The case of the first judge, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, expanded the executive's role in appointing members of the higher judiciary. The outcomes were deemed unsatisfactory, and the executive's predominance was considered an impractical appointment strategy. In 2013, the UPA government introduced the 120th amendment bill, which proposed the establishment of a Judicial Appointment Commission with six members.
ISSUES:
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS:
The petitioner argued that in accordance with Article 50 of the Indian constitution, there should be a clear separation between the executive and the judiciary. They advocated for a reduction in executive influence in judicial appointments and emphasized the importance of not disregarding the Chief Justice of India's recommendations. In the current process of judicial appointments, the passive role of the CJI has proven to be counterproductive, as the President's authority has made the CJI more passive than actively involved. This dominance of the executive branch is stifling the independence of the judiciary, ultimately jeopardizing the integrity of a fair and impartial justice system. The contested constitutional amendment has eroded the autonomy of the judiciary, particularly with regards to the responsibilities outlined in articles 124 and 217 for the NJAC Chief Justice.
RESPONDENT CONTENTIONS:
The Union of India initiated a legal proceeding contesting the legality of two precedents directly relevant to the case. According to the provisions, a higher judiciary appointment can only occur if five out of six NJAC commission members endorse a candidate. The argument put forth was that these challenged provisions uphold the core structure of the Constitution. The Constitution itself has conferred upon the President a higher degree of autonomy in the appointment process. Furthermore, the constitution has defined the privileges and remuneration, and even a unanimous bill cannot diminish the stipulated salary and allowances.
JUDGMENT-
The court sided with the petitioner, emphasizing the significance of Article 124A in the constitution, deeming it indispensable and irremovable. It found that clauses (a) and (b) of Article 124A failed to adequately represent the judicial element within the NJAC, which was insufficient in upholding the paramountcy of the judiciary and violated the principles of judicial independence integral to the constitutional framework.
The majority of respondents advocated for the collegium system and proposed enhancements to enhance its efficiency and transparency. The nine-judge bench overruled the 1993 decision in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, marking a pivotal shift. The chief justice was granted pre-eminence, curbing the executive's authority. This ruling upheld the essence of Article 50 in the constitution, emphasizing the imperative to eschew favoritism in the selection process. The judgment specified that the Chief Justice of India must hold primacy in the appointment process and that the influence of the executive should be curtailed.
Additionally, it delineated the forthcoming procedures for the selection of justices. It mandated that when the need arises to appoint a judge, the proposal must originate from the Chief Justice of India, and in the case of the High Court, from the respective Chief Justices. The same process must be followed for transfers, with the Chief Justice of India initiating the transfer of a High Court Chief Justice. The Apex Court underscored that the Chief Justice's viewpoint should take precedence, while also considering the perspectives of colleagues. The appointment process should engage all components of the constitutional apparatus in a cohesive manner.