Why Did the Supreme Court Reject NJAC? The Collegium System Explained for CLAT 2027

The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary has long involved a debate over the role of the Executive and the Judiciary. While the Constitution provides for the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after consultation, it does not set out a detailed selection procedure. Over time, landmark Supreme Court judgments changed the interpretation of this process and established the collegium system.

In 2014, Parliament introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium and give other institutions a role in judicial appointments. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court declared the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional, restoring the collegium system. Understanding these developments is important for CLAT aspirants studying constitutional law. PW CLAT batches support preparation through live and recorded classes, mock tests, sectional practice, current affairs resources and doubt-solving support.

Constitutional Basis of Supreme Court Appointments

Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. It states that the President appoints judges after consulting the Chief Justice of India and other judges as specified by the Constitution.

However, the Constitution did not originally establish a detailed procedure for selecting judges or clearly define the relative authority of the Executive and the Judiciary in this process. This led to different interpretations of the term consultation and the role of the Chief Justice of India.

Initially, the Executive had a significant role in judicial appointments. The President made appointments based on the constitutional process, with the Central Government playing an important part in the decision-making. The extent of the Judiciary’s role became a major constitutional issue in the subsequent Judges Cases.

The First Judges Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India

The S.P. Gupta case (1981), also known as the First Judges Case, examined the meaning of consultation in judicial appointments.

The Supreme Court held that consultation with the Chief Justice of India did not mean that the Chief Justice’s opinion was binding on the government. The judgment gave primacy to the Executive in the appointment process.

This position continued until the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in the Second Judges Case in 1993.

The Second Judges Case and the Beginning of the Collegium System

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), commonly known as the Second Judges Case, the Supreme Court reconsidered the earlier interpretation of judicial appointments.

The Court held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India would have primacy, but it had to be formed through consultation with a collegium of senior Supreme Court judges. For appointments to the Supreme Court, this collegium consisted of:

• The Chief Justice of India

• The Two Senior-Most Judges of the Supreme Court

This judgment shifted the primary role in recommending judicial appointments from the Executive to the Judiciary. However, the Executive was not completely excluded. It could return a recommendation for reconsideration, but if the collegium reiterated its recommendation, the government was expected to give effect to it.

The Third Judges Case and Expansion of the Collegium

In 1998, the President sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the consultation process through a Presidential Reference under Article 143. The Court's response is known as the Third Judges Case.

The Court clarified the procedure for judicial appointments and expanded the collegium for recommending Supreme Court judges. It included:

• The Chief Justice of India

• The Four Senior-Most Judges of the Supreme Court

The opinion also laid down further consultation requirements, including considering the views of judges familiar with the High Court from which a candidate was being considered.

The collegium system thus developed into a process in which senior judges collectively considered recommendations for appointments and transfers. The Executive could seek reconsideration of a recommendation, but a reiterated recommendation was ordinarily binding.

Criticism of the Collegium System

Although the collegium system gives the Judiciary primacy in judicial appointments, it has faced criticism over transparency and accountability.

Some commonly raised concerns include:

• Limited transparency: The reasons behind recommendations are not always explained in detail.

• Unclear selection criteria: The process may not make the relative importance of factors such as merit, seniority and representation sufficiently clear.

• Limited public accountability: The decision-making process takes place within the Judiciary, with limited public participation.

• Scope for inconsistency: Critics argue that the absence of clearly articulated criteria can make the process difficult to assess.

These concerns led to demands for a more transparent and broad-based appointment mechanism. The NJAC was introduced as an attempt to change the existing system.

Introduction of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

In August 2014, Parliament passed the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, along with the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. These measures proposed replacing the collegium system with the NJAC.

The proposed six-member NJAC included:

1. The Chief Justice of India, as the Chairperson.

2. The Two Senior-Most Judges of the Supreme Court, next to the CJI.

3. The Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice.

4. Two eminent persons, nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the single largest opposition party, where applicable).

The proposed commission aimed to make judicial appointments more broad-based by including members beyond the Judiciary. It also introduced a provision under which any two members could prevent a recommendation from being made.

Why Did the Supreme Court Reject the NJAC?

The constitutional validity of the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act was challenged before the Supreme Court. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), known as the Fourth Judges Case or the NJAC case, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down both measures by a 4:1 majority.

The Court's majority held that the NJAC arrangement violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the independence of the Judiciary. The key constitutional concerns included:

1. Impact on Judicial Independence

The majority considered judicial independence an essential feature of the Constitution. It held that the proposed composition of the NJAC could affect the Judiciary's independence by giving non-judicial members a significant role in selecting judges.

2. Concern Over the Veto Provision

Under the NJAC framework, any two members could prevent a recommendation from being made. The Court considered this provision significant because it could allow the two eminent persons, or other combinations of members, to block a recommendation.

3. Separation of Powers

The separation of powers requires the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary to function within their respective constitutional roles. The majority found that the proposed NJAC structure did not adequately protect the Judiciary's independence in the appointment process.

What Was the Final Decision?

The Supreme Court declared the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the collegium system that existed before the amendment was restored.

The judgment did not mean that Parliament could never introduce an alternative appointment mechanism. Any such arrangement, however, would have to preserve the core constitutional principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.

Evolution of the Collegium System: Important Cases and Events

The development of the collegium system can be understood through the following sequence:

1. Original constitutional arrangement: Article 124(2) provided for the President to appoint Supreme Court judges after consultation.

2. First Judges Case (1981): The S.P. Gupta judgment gave primacy to the Executive in judicial appointments.

3. Second Judges Case (1993): The Supreme Court gave primacy to the CJI's opinion formed through a collegium of the CJI and two senior-most judges.

4. Third Judges Case (1998): The collegium for Supreme Court appointments was expanded to include the CJI and four senior-most judges.

5. 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014): Parliament introduced the NJAC to replace the collegium system.

6. Fourth Judges Case (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act.

7. Restoration of the collegium: The earlier collegium system became operative again.

Memory Tip: Remember the sequence as S.P. Gupta → Second Judges Case → Third Judges Case → NJAC → Fourth Judges Case. The key distinction is that the Second Judges Case established the collegium, the Third Judges Case expanded it, and the Fourth Judges Case rejected the NJAC.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the NJAC was based on the constitutional importance of judicial independence. The Second and Third Judges Cases established and expanded the collegium system, while the Fourth Judges Case reaffirmed that an appointment mechanism must protect the Judiciary from undue influence.

For CLAT aspirants, understanding the sequence of these cases, the composition of the collegium and the reasons behind the NJAC judgment is useful for building a clear understanding of constitutional law. PW provides CLAT online coaching, including live and recorded classes, full-length and sectional mock tests, topic-wise practice, current affairs resources and doubt-solving sessions.