Article 124C

Article 124C, introduced by the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, empowered the Parliament of India to make laws regulating the functions, procedures, and operations of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This article formed an integral part of the NJAC framework — along with Articles 124A and 124B — aimed at reforming the system of appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.
Although the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act in 2015, declaring them unconstitutional, Article 124C remains part of the constitutional text, though it has no operative effect. The judgment reaffirmed that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that any legislative or executive intrusion into judicial appointments would undermine this foundational principle.

Constitutional Background and Purpose

Before the 99th Amendment, judicial appointments were governed by Articles 124 and 217, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998), which established the Collegium System. Under this system, the judiciary held primacy in appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The NJAC and Article 124C were introduced to restructure the appointment process, aiming to:

• Increase transparency and accountability in judicial appointments,
• Reduce allegations of nepotism and opacity in the Collegium System, and
• Establish a statutory mechanism allowing Parliament to define procedures through law.

In this context, Article 124C provided the constitutional foundation for Parliament to legislate on the procedural and regulatory aspects of the NJAC.

Text and Scope of Article 124C

Article 124C (as inserted by the 99th Constitutional Amendment) stated:

“Parliament may, by law, regulate the procedure for the appointment of Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices and other Judges of the High Courts and empower the Commission established under Article 124A to make regulations for the discharge of its functions, the manner of selection of persons for appointment, and such other matters as may be considered necessary.”

This provision gave Parliament the power to:

1. Legislate on the appointment and transfer of judges.
2. Authorize the NJAC to frame detailed regulations concerning selection, eligibility criteria, and evaluation methods.
3. Lay down guidelines for ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency in the judicial appointment process.

Through Article 124C, Parliament became the principal body responsible for setting the legislative framework governing the NJAC’s functioning.

Role of the Commission Under Article 124C

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), established under Article 124A, derived its operational authority from Article 124C. The NJAC was expected to:

• Formulate procedural regulations for the discharge of its constitutional duties.
• Determine the manner of selection for appointments to the higher judiciary.
• Ensure equitable representation in the judiciary across regions, communities, and genders.
• Maintain transparency and fairness in judicial appointments and transfers.

The Commission’s power to create its own regulations was, however, subject to parliamentary supervision, preserving a democratic balance in the exercise of appointment powers.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 124C was part of a trio of interrelated provisions introduced by the 99th Amendment:

• Article 124A: Defined the composition of the NJAC, including judicial, executive, and eminent members.
• Article 124B: Detailed the functions of the NJAC, such as recommending appointments and transfers of judges.
• Article 124C: Empowered Parliament to legislate on the NJAC’s procedures and regulations.

Additionally, it operated in conjunction with:

• Article 124: Dealing with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court.
• Article 217: Governing the appointment and tenure of High Court judges.
• Article 50: Directing the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

Together, these articles were intended to modernise and democratise the judicial appointment process while maintaining constitutional safeguards for judicial independence.

Judicial Review and the 2015 Supreme Court Verdict

The constitutional validity of the NJAC and Article 124C was challenged before a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).

Issues Considered:

1. Whether the NJAC and the 99th Constitutional Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Whether executive participation and inclusion of “eminent persons” in the NJAC compromised judicial independence.
3. Whether Parliament’s power under Article 124C infringed upon the principle of separation of powers.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• By a 4:1 majority, the Court declared Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C, along with the NJAC Act, 2014, as unconstitutional and void.
• The Court reasoned that judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be diluted by constitutional amendment.
• Article 124C’s delegation of powers to Parliament and the Commission was deemed to give excessive legislative control over the judicial appointment process.
• Consequently, the Collegium System was revived as the valid mechanism for appointing judges.

Justice J. Chelameswar, dissenting, upheld the NJAC, arguing that the Collegium lacked transparency and accountability and that Article 124C was a valid exercise of parliamentary power.

Significance of Article 124C

Despite being struck down, Article 124C holds enduring constitutional and political significance:

1. Legislative Empowerment: It represented an important attempt to grant Parliament a structured role in judicial appointments.
2. Reform Initiative: It embodied the effort to institutionalise transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
3. Checks and Balances: It sought to democratise the appointment process by involving multiple stakeholders beyond the judiciary.
4. Debate on Separation of Powers: It reignited national discourse on maintaining equilibrium between executive influence and judicial independence.

Thus, Article 124C remains a symbol of India’s continuing constitutional dialogue over the proper balance of powers in judicial governance.

Key Judicial Precedents

The NJAC debate and the interpretation of Article 124C must be understood in the broader context of India’s judicial evolution:

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – The First Judges Case; recognised executive primacy in appointments.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – The Second Judges Case; established judicial primacy through the Collegium System.
• In re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 – The Third Judges Case; clarified the functioning of the Collegium.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) – The Fourth Judges Case; struck down the NJAC and Articles 124A–124C as unconstitutional.

These cases collectively reflect the judiciary’s assertion of independence and its resistance to perceived encroachments by the executive or legislature.

Contemporary Relevance

Even after being rendered inoperative, Article 124C continues to influence debates on judicial reform. Many legal scholars and policymakers argue that:

• The Collegium System must evolve with greater transparency in its functioning.
• A reformed version of the NJAC could reconcile judicial independence with accountability.
• There remains a need for a constitutionally sound framework that ensures both integrity and public confidence in judicial appointments.

Hence, while Article 124C no longer has legal force, its legacy continues to shape constitutional discussions on judicial reforms.

Current Status

• Article 124C technically remains in the Constitution, but it has no legal or functional effect after the 2015 judgment.
• The Collegium System continues to operate as the prevailing mechanism for appointing and transferring judges.
• The Government of India and the judiciary periodically engage in dialogue to improve the collegium’s transparency, particularly through the publication of appointment reasons and criteria.

Conclusion

Article 124C represented a significant constitutional effort to codify and democratise the process of judicial appointments in India. It granted Parliament the authority to regulate the functioning of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, aiming to balance judicial independence with executive accountability.