Article 124 of the Constitution
Article 124 deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court, stating that the President of India appoints every judge of the Supreme Court after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Historical Context and Developments
- Constituent Assembly Debate: A suggestion to replace "consultation" with "concurrence" was rejected by B R Ambedkar to avoid giving veto power to the Chief Justice.
- First Judges Case (1981) - S P Gupta Case: The Supreme Court ruled that "consultation" does not mean "concurrence", thus maintaining judicial independence without giving undue power to the Chief Justice.
- Collegium System: Reversed the interpretation of "consultation" to mean "concurrence" in the 1990s, establishing a collegium system for judicial appointments consisting of the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
- Establishment: Created by the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, consisting of six members including the Chief Justice, two senior-most judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons.
- Supreme Court Verdict (2015): Declared NJAC unconstitutional using the "Basic Structure Doctrine", stating that it compromised judicial independence by including non-judicial members.
- Dissent and Criticism:
- Justice Jasti Chelameswar criticized the collegium system for its lack of transparency and accountability.
- Justice Ruma Pal described the process as secretive, leading to questionable appointments.
Arguments and Perspectives
- Criticism of Collegium System: Lacks transparency and accountability, with some judges expressing regret over the NJAC judgment.
- Support for NJAC: Aims to involve the government in the appointment process, reflecting a more balanced approach compared to the exclusive judicial control under the collegium system.
Conclusion and Future Considerations
The debate over judicial appointments remains critical, with calls to revisit the NJAC decision in public interest, suggesting a need for a larger bench to assess its implications on judicial reform.
