Article 124A: The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Who should choose India’s judges? For years, judges chose them. In 2014, Parliament tried a new way. It created a commission with a Law Minister and two outside members. The Supreme Court heard the challenge and gave its answer in 2015. What happened, step by step?

1What Did Article 124A Create?

• The 99th Amendment (2014) inserted Article 124A. It created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
• The NJAC had six members.
• Three were judges: the Chief Justice of India and the two next senior Supreme Court judges.
• One was the Union Law Minister.
• Two were eminent persons. A panel of the CJI, the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha chose them.
• The NJAC was meant to replace the collegium for appointing judges.

2What Happened in the Three Judges Cases?

• The Constitution says the President appoints judges after consulting the Chief Justice. It did not say what “consult” meant.
• In 1981, a seven-judge bench heard S.P. Gupta’s case. This is the First Judges Case.
• The Court said “consultation” is not “concurrence”. The Government could disagree with the CJI. The executive had the last word.
• In 1993, a nine-judge bench decided the Second Judges Case. It overruled the 1981 view.
• The Court said the CJI’s opinion has primacy. The CJI must act with two senior judges. This was the first collegium.
• In 1998, the President asked the Court for its opinion under Article 143. This is the Third Judges Case.
• The Court said the Supreme Court collegium is the CJI and the four senior-most judges. For High Courts, it is the CJI and two senior judges.

3What Happened in the NJAC Case?

• Critics said the collegium was closed and slow. Many wanted a fresh system.
• In August 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act. States ratified the amendment.
• The President gave assent on 31 December 2014.
• Both laws came into force on 13 April 2015.
• The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association challenged them.
• A five-judge bench heard the case. This is the Fourth Judges Case.
• On 16 October 2015, four judges struck down the amendment and the Act. Justice Chelameswar disagreed.
• The old collegium system came back.
• The Court also said it would hear ideas to improve the collegium. A review plea against the verdict was later dismissed.

4Why Did the Court Say No?

• The Court held that judicial independence is part of the basic structure.
• Under the NJAC Act, any two members could block a name.
• So the Law Minister and one eminent person could stop a name that all three judges backed.
• The majority felt judges had lost the leading role in choosing judges.
• The vague role of “eminent persons” also worried the Court.
• Justice Chelameswar saw it differently. He thought a wider group could add checks and balances.

5What Is the Debate Today?

• The collegium still appoints judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Since October 2017, it has put its decisions on the Supreme Court website.
• Supporters say it protects the courts from political pressure.
• Critics say it lacks clear rules and openness.
• The two views remain in open public debate.

6What Should You Remember for Exams?

Must Know

• The 99th Amendment inserted Article 124A and created the NJAC.
• The Supreme Court struck it down on 16 October 2015 by 4:1.
• The collegium came back.

Good to Know

• The NJAC had six members.
• The case is the Fourth Judges Case.
• The earlier cases came in 1981, 1993 and 1998.

Great to Know

• The NJAC is not in force (Trap).
• The 99th Amendment was not upheld (Trap).
• The 1981 case gave the executive the last word, not the judges (Trap).

7How Has This Been Asked in Exams?