ANALYSIS

In their petition, the petitioners claimed that Article 50 of the Constitution requires
institutions to maintain the executive and judicial branches as separate as feasible. As a result,
the Executive's advantage in appointment procedures is a violation of Article 50. The
executive became "lord of the lords" and thus "overlords" as a result of the challenged 1982
ruling. Considering the executive's responsibility to limit its interference with the judiciary,
the CJI's suggestion must not be ignored. As a result of this power of defiance, the Chief
Justice has become a passive participant in the appointment process. It is detrimental to the
freedom of the courts that the Chief Justice of India is apathetic and passive. By stifling
judicial independence, it undermines the ability to administer justice fairly and impartially. In
order to maintain judicial independence, the court must interpret the word "Consultation" as
equivalent to "Concurrence".

Respondents contend that Articles 1241 and 214 of the Constitution give the president
the authority to appoint Supreme Court and High Court judges. 2 It is the executive that
wields the most power in the process, with the Chief Justice serving as a consultant. Even if
the administration disagrees with the CJI, the judiciary's independence is not compromised.
The President now has more discretion in the appointment procedure thanks to the
Constitution itself. In the case of unclear information about the potential candidate, the Chief
Justice must notify the President.  Having completed the CJI's involvement, the President
finally has the responsibility of nominating a candidate. Constitutionally, neither the
legislature nor the administration may interfere with or modify the independence of the
judiciary.

On October 6, 1993, the nine-judge panel handed down its much-anticipated decision.  The
Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision in SP Gupta by a 7:2 majority and held that the Chief
Justice of India's opinion must always take priority in cases involving the appointment of judges in
the higher courts. Thus, the selection process was free of political influence and personal
favouritism. SP Gupta's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court after it determined that the
Chief Justice of India's recommendation, based on the opinions of two

1
INDIA CONST. art. 124(2).
2
Jaiswal, S. (2023) NJAC and collegium: The hidden truth, Tfipost.com. Available at:
https://tfipost.com/2023/01/njac-and-collegium-the-hidden-truth/ (Accessed: March 14, 2023).