Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Case (2015)
(Fourth Judges Case / NJAC Case)
Background of the Case
To reform the judicial appointment process, Parliament enacted:
- 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
- National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014
The NJAC proposed to replace the collegium system with a body comprising:
- Chief Justice of India
- Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
- Union Law Minister
- Two “eminent persons” (selected by a committee including the PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition)
This system was challenged on the ground that it compromised judicial independence.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Does the NJAC violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
- Is judicial primacy in appointments a component of judicial independence?
- Can Parliament alter the appointment mechanism through constitutional amendment?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
A five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a far-reaching verdict.
(a) 99th Amendment Act Declared Unconstitutional
The Court held that:
- The 99th Amendment Act (2014) violates the Basic Structure
- Judicial independence is an essential feature of the Constitution
Hence → Any mechanism that dilutes judicial primacy in appointments is unconstitutional.
(b) NJAC Act Declared Void
Consequently:
- The NJAC Act, 2014 was also struck down
- The presence of → Executive members, Veto-wielding “eminent persons → was held to potentially undermine judicial independence
(c) Restoration of Collegium System
The Court ruled that:
- The collegium system (as evolved in the Second and Third Judges Cases) shall continue to operate
- Judicial primacy in appointments remains intact
(d) Scope for Improvement Acknowledged
Importantly, the Court admitted that:
- The collegium system has deficiencies
- It directed that:
- The matter be listed separately
- To consider measures for improving transparency and functioning of the collegium
This led to discussions on:
- Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
- Greater transparency in appointments
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Reaffirmed independence of judiciary as part of the Basic Structure
- Strengthened separation of powers
- Limited Parliament’s constituent power
- Reasserted the Court’s role as the final guardian of the Constitution
Impact of the Judgement
- 99th Amendment Act, 2014 became void
- NJAC Act, 2014 ceased to operate
- Collegium system restored for appointment of:
- Supreme Court judges
- High Court judges
Place in Judges Appointment Jurisprudence
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta (1981) | Executive primacy |
| Second Judges (1993) | Judicial primacy |
| Third Judges (1998) | Collegium clarified |
| NJAC Case (2015) | Collegium restored |
Criticism and Debate
- Supporters → Protect judicial independence
- Critics:
- Point to lack of transparency
- Argue democratic deficit
This debate remains constitutionally unresolved.
Summary
The NJAC Case (2015) struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act for violating the Basic Structure, restored the collegium system, and reaffirmed judicial primacy in judicial appointments.