SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANO VS. UNION OF INDIA, 2015

FACTS-

        This case is famously known as ‘Second Judges Case”. On 13.4.2015 the Indian Constitution (99^th Amendment) Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, were notified in the Gazette of India. Both the above enactments were brought into force with effect from 13.4.2015. Accordingly, on 13.4.2015 Anil R. Dave, J. became an ex officio Member of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, on account of being the second senior most Judge after the Chief Justice of India, under the mandate of Article 124A (1)(b).

           The provisions of the Constitution (99^th Amendment) Act, 2014 and of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 have been brought into force from April 13, 2015. As a consequence, the Presiding Judge on this Bench, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, has become member ex officio of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, whose constitutional validity has been challenged.

             The first judge’s case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India) gave the primacy to the executive in appointments to the higher judiciary, declaring that the advice of the CJI’s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.”  The results were not good enough to suggest that we should have an executive dominant system of appointments.

ISSUES-

1.   Whether the 99^th Constitution Amendment Act of 2014 and the Judicial Appointments Commission act of 2014 altered the Constitution’s Fundamental Structure?
2. Whether the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014 was founded on the executive’s preponderant interests?

ARGUMENTS-

Argument by Petitioner- 

The petitioner contended for the minimization of executive involvement in judicial appointments. And the recommendation of CJI should not be ignored. The executive should be separated from the operation of the judiciary in accordance with Article 50 of the Indian constitution. The contested Constitutional Amendment has compromised the independence of the judiciary. By virtue of Articles 124 and 217, the NJAC chief justice’s responsibility has been eliminated.

Arguments by Respondent-

It was argued that the challenged provisions preserve the fundamental framework of the constitution. And was contended that the structure of the constitution is preserved by the impugned provisions. Constitution of India itself grants powers to President. The allowances and salary has also been fixed by the constitution and parliament cannot reduce the quantum of salary and allowances even by any unanimous bill.

JUDGEMENT-

                                    The Supreme Court with a majority of 4:1 gave the judgement in favour of petitioners and held that Article 124A is that the most vital article of the 99th amendment. The court has struck down The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, declaring them to be unconstitutional and void. In the ratio of 4:1 everyone gave their separate opinion and Justice Chalemeswar upheld the validity of the Amendment. Judicial Primacy is not only constitutionally required, but is also part that cannot amended basic structure because it is integral to the independence of the judiciary. And as a consequence of the prior holdings, the NJAC was held unconstitutional for violating the requirements of judicial primacy and judicial independence.

REFERENCE-

https://indiankanoon.org/

https://main.sci.gov.in/

https://www.livelaw.in/

This case analysis is done by Miss. Rutuja Santosh Kokare of Ismailsaheb Mulla Law College, Satara, Legal Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Admin