Consider the following Supreme Court judgements:

S P Gupta vs Union of India, 1981 – CJI’s opinion not binding on the executive.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs Union of India, 1993 – CJI’s opinion binding on the executive.

Third Judges Case (1998) – SC devised a specific procedure called ‘Collegium System’.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Question

In S P Gupta Vs Union of India, 1981 (commonly known as First Judges Case), the Supreme Court ruled that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies an exchange of views.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs Union of India, 1993 (also known as Second Judges Case), Supreme court overruled its earlier decision and devised a specific procedure called ‘Collegium System’ for the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary. It accorded primacy to the CJI in matters of appointment and transfers. It also held that Consultation meant concurrence and that the CJI’s opinion enjoys supremacy and is binding on the executive.
In the Third Judges case (1998), the Court opined that the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India requires ‘consultation of plurality judges’. CJI should consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send the recommendation to the government.
The court held that the recommendation made by the chief justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process is not binding on the government.

GKToday Admin · Accepted Answer

Only 1 & 2

In S P Gupta Vs Union of India, 1981 (commonly known as First Judges Case), the Supreme Court ruled that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies an exchange of views.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs Union of India, 1993 (also known as Second Judges Case), Supreme court overruled its earlier decision and devised a specific procedure called ‘Collegium System’ for the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary. It accorded primacy to the CJI in matters of appointment and transfers. It also held that Consultation meant concurrence and that the CJI’s opinion enjoys supremacy and is binding on the executive.
In the Third Judges case (1998), the Court opined that the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India requires ‘consultation of plurality judges’. CJI should consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send the recommendation to the government.
The court held that the recommendation made by the chief justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process is not binding on the government.

Current Affairs