Important Judgements

related to appointment of
Judges
TOPICS

1 What is the Collegium system

2 Civil Advisory Jurisdiction

3 S.P. Gupta vs Union of India -1982

4 SC Advocates on record vs Union of India, 1993

5 Supreme court of India vs Civil Advisory Jurisdiction, 1998

6 Supreme court Advocates on record vs Union of India,2015

 What is the collegium system

- IT IS A SYSTEM UNDER WHICH APPOINTMENTS AND TRANSFERS OF JUDGES ARE

DECIDED BY A FORUM OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND THE FOUR SENIOR-
MOST JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

Article 124 deals with the
appointment of Supreme Court
Judges, it says the appointment
should be made by the president
after consultation with such
judges of the High courts and
the Supreme court as the
president may deem necessary.
The CJI is to be consulyted in
all the appointments, except his
or her own
Article 217 deals with the
appointment of High Court
judges, it says a jusge With regard to the
should be appointed by the collegium system there are
president after consultation 3 most important
with the CJI and the judgements which are also
Governor of the State. The called “Three Judges case”
Chief Justice of the High
court concerned too should
be consulted
 Civil Advisory Jurisdiction
ARTICLE 143 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION CONFERS UPON THE SUPREME
COURT ADVISORY JURISDICTION. THE PRESIDENT MAY SEEK THE OPINION OF
THE SUPREME COURT ON ANY QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE ON WHICH HE THINKS IT EXPEDIENT TO OBTAIN SUCH AN OPINION

THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND TO GIVE ITS OPINION. RATHER, THE SUPREME COURT
MAY DECLINE TO GIVE ITS OPINION UNDER ARTICLE 143 IN CASES IT DOES NOT CONSIDER
PROPER OR NOT AMENABLE TO SUCH EXERCISE
 S.P. Gupta VS Union of India,1982

THE SP GUPTA CASE (1982) IS ALSO CALLED “THE FIRST JUDGES CASE”. IT
DECLARED THAT THE “PRIMACY” OF THE CJI’S RECOMMENDATION TO
THE PRESIDENT CAN BE REFUSED FOR “COGENT REASONS”

This brought a shift in favour of the executive having primacy over the judiciary in judicial appointments
for the next 12 years
 SC Advocates on record vs Union of India, 1993

IN 1993, CAME A 9-JUDGE BENCH DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT

ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA CASE – THE
“SECOND JUDGES CASE”. THIS WAS WHAT USHERED IN THE COLLEGIUM
SYSTEM

The majority verdict written by Justice J S Verma said “Justiciability” and “Primacy” required that the CJI
be given the “Primal” role in such appointments

It overturned the SP Gupta judgement, saying the role of CJI is the most important and the executive
cannot have an equal say in the matter.
 Supreme court of India vs Civil Advisory Jurisdiction, 1998

IN 1998, PRESIDENT KR NARAYANAN ISSUED A PRESIDENTIAL

REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT AS TO WHAT THE TERM
“CONSULTATION” REALLY MEANS IN ARTICLE 124, 217 AND 222
(TRANSFER OF HC JUDGES) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The question was if the term “consultation” requires consultation with a number of judges in forming the
CJIs opinion, or whether the sole opinion of the CJI constituted the meaning of the articles.

In reply, the Supreme Court laid down 9 guidelines for the functioning of the oram for
appointments/transfers; this came to be the present form of the collegium.
 Supreme court Advocates on record vs Union of India,2015

THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED WAS WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION

NINETY-NINTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL
APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT, 2014 ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS OR NOT ?

Court struck down the ninety-ninth amendment act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments commission
Act, 2014, declaring them to be unconstitutional and void with a majority of 4:1. The court has also rejected
the respondent’s plea for refrence to a larger bench for the reconsideration of the second and Third Judges’s
cases. Hence the collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges has been restored