INTRODUCTION

Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution that preserves the elemental rights and also the basic structure of the constitution. The appointment, transfer, and removal of judges is one such issues where the court has developed the procedures through its judgments. Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association v. Union of India was one in every of the landmark cases that upheld the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary that forms the essential structure of the Constitution. This judgement is popularly conjointly referred to as NJAC judgement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• In 2014 the NDA government introduced The Constitutional (121st Amendment) Bill, which was subsequently passed by both houses of the parliament, ratified by sixteen state legislatures and assented by the President; NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into effect from 13th April 2015.
• The legislature inserted Article 124A, 124B,124C. Article 124(2) every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the president by warrant with a seal on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointment Commission referred to in Article 124A. After the amendment, no consultation is required by the president with the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High court. The 99th amendment replaced the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointment Commission for the appointment of judges.
• The NJAC used to comprise of CJI, Chairpersons, Union Minister of Law and Justice, Prime Minister, Leader of opposition party in the house of people etc. which was causing hindrance in the independence of judiciary and thereby violating Article 50 of the Constitution.
• In early 2015, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Senior Advocates filed write petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Ninety-ninth Amendment and the NJAC Article 24. The petitions alleged, inter alia, that the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution by compromising the judiciary’s independence protected under Article 50 of the Constitution.

ISSUES INVOLVED

Whether the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 is constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 is violative of the ‘Principles of Separation Of Powers’(Article 50) or not?

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PETITIONER

The judicial responsibility in the matter of appointment of Judges is the most important trusteeship, could not be permitted to be shared, with either the executive or the legislature.
The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, had done away with, the responsibility vested with the Chief Justice of India, represented through a collegium of Judges (under Articles 124 and 217 – as originally enacted). Accordingly, it was submitted, that till the system adopted for selection and appointment of Judges, established and affirmed, the unimpeachable primacy of the judiciary, “independence of the judiciary” could not be deemed to have been preserved.

The “independence of the judiciary” had been seriously compromised, through the impugned 99th constitutional amendment Act.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS

Enacting the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, the Parliament had discharged a responsibility, which it owed to the citizens of this country, by providing for a meaningful and transparent process for the selection and appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary.
The composition of the National Judicial Appointments Commission introduced through the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, according to him, meets with all constitutional requirements, as the same is neither in breach of the rule of “separation of powers”, nor that of “the independence of the judiciary”.

JUDGEMENT

Bench-, Justice Chelameswar, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Kurian Joseph.
The court has affected down The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and also the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, declaring them to be unconstitutional and void with a majority of 4:1.
The court has also conjointly rejected the respondent’s plea for relevance to a bigger bench for the reconsideration of the Second and Third Judge’s case.
The collegium system for appointment and transfer of judges was been reapplied.
They further held that the system of appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, Chief Justices, and Judges to High Court and transfer of judges from one court to another as existing prior to the Constitutional 99th Amendment Act 2015 i.e. the collegium system gets restored and be operative.

WAY AHEAD

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this NJAC judgement gave a very landmark judgement. In this case the National Judicial Appointment Committee formed by 99th Constitutional amendment Act 2015, for the appointment of Judges was held unconstitutional and being violative of Article 50 of the Constitution which talks about the independence of judiciary. After this judgement the decision of appointment of judges is taken by the Collegium system comprising of Chief Justice of India and four seniors most judges of the court where the appointment needs to be done.

SUBMITTED BY
ANIKET DIMRI
AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA