Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Case (1993)
– Second Judges Case
Background of the Case
Articles 124(2) and 217(1) provide that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be appointed by the President after consultation with:
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI)
- Other judges, as required
In the S.P. Gupta Case (1981) (First Judges Case), the Supreme Court had held that:
- The President is not bound by the CJI’s opinion
- “Consultation” does not mean concurrence
This interpretation gave the executive primacy in judicial appointments.
The correctness of this view was challenged in the Second Judges Case.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Who has primacy in judicial appointments—the Executive or the Judiciary?
- What is the meaning of “consultation” in Articles 124 and 217?
- How can judicial independence be best protected?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
A nine-judge Constitutional Bench delivered a landmark verdict.
(a) Overruling the First Judges Case
The Court overruled S.P. Gupta (1981) and held that:
- The Chief Justice of India has primacy in judicial appointments
- The executive cannot override the judiciary’s opinion
(b) Consultation Means Concurrence
The Court re-interpreted the word “consultation” to mean “concurrence”.
Thus: The President must act in accordance with the advice of the Chief Justice of India.
However, this advice: Must be institutional, not personal
(c) Collective Decision-Making by Judges
The Court held that:
- The CJI must consult:
- Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
- This ensures: Objectivity, Elimination of arbitrariness
(d) Seniority Convention for CJI
The Court also held that:
- The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should be appointed as the Chief Justice of India
This strengthened certainty and neutrality.
Birth of the Collegium System
From this judgment emerged the collegium system, wherein:
- Judicial appointments are decided by:
- The CJI
- Senior judges of the Supreme Court
Though not mentioned in the Constitution, this system was judicially evolved to → Safeguard judicial independence
Impact of the Judgement
(a) Third Judges Case (1998)
In a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court:
- Expanded the collegium:
- 5-member collegium for Supreme Court appointments
- Clarified procedures
(b) Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
Based on → The Second Judges Case (1993), and The Third Judges Case (1998) → A Memorandum of Procedure was formulated, governing → Appointment, Transfer, Elevation of judges
This procedure continues to be followed.
Constitutional Significance
This case:
- Shifted control of appointments from executive to judiciary
- Strengthened judicial independence
- Altered the balance of powers
- Generated long-term debates on:
- Transparency
- Accountability
- Judicial overreach
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Case | Position |
|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta (1981) | Executive primacy |
| Second Judges (1993) | Judicial primacy |
| Third Judges (1998) | Collegium expanded |
| NJAC Case (2015) | Collegium retained |
Summary
The Second Judges Case (1993) gave primacy to the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments, interpreted “consultation” as “concurrence”, and laid the foundation of the collegium system.