Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (NJAC / Fourth Judges' Case)

Facts

Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act 2014 to replace the collegium with a six-member National Judicial Appointments Commission comprising the CJI and two seniormost judges, the Union Law Minister, and two 'eminent persons'. Judges thus lacked a majority say, and two eminent persons could veto a unanimous judicial recommendation; Article 124C empowered Parliament to regulate the process by ordinary law. The measures were challenged immediately as destroying judicial independence.

Issues

• Do the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
• Is the primacy of the judiciary in appointments an essential component of judicial independence and separation of powers?
• Does the composition of the NJAC (Law Minister and two eminent persons) impermissibly dilute judicial primacy?

Arguments

The petitioners argued that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure and that the NJAC's composition (giving the executive and lay eminent persons a veto) destroys judicial independence. The Union argued that the NJAC broad-based, made transparent and participatory the process, that executive lacking exclusive control sufficed for independence, and that judicial primacy was not itself a basic feature.

Held

By a 4:1 majority the Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as violating the basic structure. Khehar J held that judicial primacy was constitutionally mandated and that the NJAC's composition — allowing the two eminent persons to block a unanimous judicial nomination and giving the Law Minister a decisive role — undermined independence. Lokur J emphasised the constitutional convention of judicial primacy and the veto problem; Goel J held primacy to be part of the basic structure; Joseph J stressed separation of powers and the bargaining the structure would induce. Chelameswar J dissented, holding that the basic feature was the executive lacking exclusive power to appoint, which the Amendment did not violate. The collegium system was revived, with the Court inviting suggestions to improve it.

Ratio decidendi

Primacy of the judiciary in the appointment of superior court judges is an essential incident of judicial independence and forms part of the basic structure; a constitutional amendment diluting that primacy is void.

Significance

The 'Fourth Judges' Case' is the definitive modern affirmation that judicial independence in appointments is part of the inviolable basic structure, decisively rejecting executive/legislative attempts to reclaim control. It cemented the collegium's constitutional status while acknowledging its imperfections and the continuing tension between independence and accountability.

Related