 Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority of India.

It consists
of the Chief Justice and 25 other judges.

 The Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court are
appointed by the President of India.

 While appointing the Chief Justice, the President is

constitutionally required to consult such other judges of the
Supreme Court.

 While appointing other judges, the President is bound to consult

the Chief Justice and other senior judges, if he deems proper.
 Whenever there is vacancy or a likely vacancy in the Supreme
Court, the Chief Justice and four other senior most judges consider
various names and recommend the names of the persons to be
appointed as judges of the Supreme Court. This system is based on
a ruling of the Constitutional Bench of a Supreme Court (handed
down in 1993 and reinforced in 1998).

 Thus, while the Constitution still provides that the President is the
appointing authority of the Supreme Court judges, the ruling of the
Supreme Court, has since 1998, become virtually binding on the
President.

 The power of selection of judges has passed on to a group of

Supreme Court judges, called the Collegium of the Court.
 Article 124(2) of the Constitution says every judge of the Supreme
Court shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the
CJI. This has resulted in a long tug-of-war between the executive
and the judiciary.

 This led to the filing of various writ petitions before various High
courts and supreme courts.

 Therefore a collegiums method was created for the first time after
the case of S.P. Gupta vs. the Union of India otherwise known as
the First Judges case.
 In 1981 the matter regarding appointment of the High court judges
as well as supreme court judges came before the supreme court by
way of public interest litigation in this case.

 Several writ petitions were filed in various High courts under

Article 226 which raised the issue of affecting the independence of
judiciary , all these petitions were transferred to supreme court for
disposal.
 Of the several functionaries participating in the process of
appointment of high court judges whose opinion amongst the
various participants should have primacy in the process of
selection.

 Another issue raised was regarding the validity of central

government orders on the non-appointment of two judges and the
disclosure of letter of communication between the law minister,
the chief justice of Delhi High court and the Chief justice of
India.
 The majority took the view that the opinions of the chief justice of
India and chief justice of High court were merely consultative and
that the power of appointment resides solely and exclusively in
the central government.
 The central government could override the opinion given by the
constitutional functionaries (viz. the CJI and the CJI of concerned
High court).
 This meant that the view of the chief justice of India did not have
primacy lay with the central government which could decide after
consulting the various constitutional functionaries and that the
central govt. was not bound to act in accordance with the opinions
of all the constitutional functionaries consulted, even I f their
opinion is identical.
 Article 124 and 217 of the constitution of India deal with the
appointment of judges to the supreme court and various High
court.
 “CONSULTATION” – this word was first used in the case of
Sankalchand Sheth which. is related to article 222.
 Consultation means means for a full and effective
consultation it is necessary that the three constitutional
functionaries must have for its consideration full and identical
facts on the basis of which they would be able to take decision.
 In the present case he court unanimously agreed with the meaning
of the term “consultation” as explained by the majority in the
Sankalchand Sheth’s case. The meaning of the word consultation
in Article 124(2) is the same as the meaning of the word
“consultation” in article 212 and 222 of the constitution.