TITLE- The freedom of the Judiciary must be safeguarded by the Constitution of India.

CASE NAME- Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India

CITATION- AIR (2015) SC 5457

COURT- the Supreme Court of India

BENCH/JUDGES- Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel

DECIDED ON-  16th October 2015

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

1. In 2015, a writ petition filed against the 99th amendment stating that the act of NJAC is unconstitutional.

2. It is explained that the recommendations of the Central Court regarding the appointment of judges may be rejected on reasonable grounds as they give priority to the executive branch in the appointment of senior judges.

3. The CJI's authority over the transfer and appointment of judges was restored by a majority decision, and since the question in the 1993 second judge case was held among nine judges, the CJI had two senior judges.

4. However, the Supreme Court ruled that four CJI senior judges should be consulted for judicial transfers and appointments. 

5. The Articles 124(2),127, and 128 were amended by the constitution act of 2014.

6. In this amendment 124A, 124B and 124C were inserted.

7. Article 124(2) states that on the recommendation of the NJAC under Art. 124A the President has power to appoint the judge of the Supreme Court.

8. But after this amendment the President is no more bound to consult with the judges of either the HC or the SC.

9. This 99th amendment replaced the collegium system with the NJAC.

ISSUES

1. Whether the 99th amendment was unconstitutional?

2. Whether this amendment is violating the principle of separation of powers?

RATIO

●  The SC ruled with a majority of 4:1 ruled in favour of petitioners, noting that section 124A is the most important provision of the 99th Amendment.

●  If section 124A is deleted, the entire change will be undone. The Court held that paragraphs a and b of section 124A do not adequately represent the judicial components of the NJAC and are insufficient to maintain judicial primacy, and therefore It found that the basic independence of the judiciary was violated.

●  Similarly, sections 124A (c) and (d) violate constitutional powers because the establishment of a trade union minister in charge of the judiciary violates the basic constitutional structure of separation of powers.

HELD

The SC ruled that the said Amendment and the  Act of NJAC are against constitutionality and invalid. The amendment of 2014 shall be applied to the process of appointing the Judges of the SC, the HC and appointment of CJI and the transfer of judges. All 5 judges delivered separate verdicts, with Judge Chalemeswar affirming the validity of the proposed amendment.

CONCLUSION

The judiciary is the most important pillar of the Constitution of India. If the Constitution is the heart and soul then the Judiciary is the brain. Both have very crucial responsibilities and obligations towards the people and the country thus it is very important that both should work with the proper and fair synchronisation.

Further stated The word "consultation" never means "approval". This could be an attempt to implement the recommendations of the 121st Judicial Commission that did not materialise.