Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC Case)

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), popularly known as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case, represents a landmark judgment in the constitutional history of India. Decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the case reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges, declaring the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional. This judgment effectively restored the Collegium System of judicial appointments, marking a significant assertion of judicial independence against perceived legislative and executive encroachment.

Background and Context

The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary in India—comprising the Supreme Court and High Courts—has long been a subject of constitutional and political debate. The original Constitution of India (1950) under Articles 124(2) and 217(1) provided that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were to be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges as deemed necessary.
Initially, this system granted the executive a dominant role, with the consultation of the judiciary not being binding. However, over time, judicial interpretations progressively strengthened the role of the judiciary in these appointments, culminating in the establishment of the Collegium System through a series of landmark judgments known as the Three Judges Cases:

1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – The First Judges Case held that the executive had primacy in judicial appointments.
2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – The Second Judges Case reversed the earlier view, granting primacy to the judiciary through the Collegium System.
3. In re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 – The Third Judges Case clarified and expanded the Collegium to include the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

In an attempt to replace the Collegium System, the Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. These measures aimed to create a more transparent and participatory process by establishing the NJAC.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

The NJAC was envisaged as a six-member body comprising:

• The Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
• Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
• The Union Minister of Law and Justice
• Two eminent persons, to be nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha

The NJAC was designed to recommend appointments and transfers of judges in the higher judiciary. The government argued that the new system would make the process more transparent, accountable, and participatory, thereby reducing the alleged opacity of the Collegium System.
However, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and other petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of both the amendment and the Act, contending that they undermined the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court

The primary constitutional questions before the Supreme Court included:

• Whether the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution by compromising the independence of the judiciary.
• Whether the inclusion of executive and lay members in the NJAC curtailed judicial primacy in appointments.
• Whether the Collegium System was constitutionally entrenched and therefore could not be replaced by parliamentary law.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that judicial independence forms a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be diluted by constitutional amendment.
• They contended that the inclusion of executive and non-judicial members in the NJAC exposed the judicial appointment process to political influence.
• It was maintained that judicial primacy in appointments had been constitutionally established through judicial interpretation and that its removal was impermissible.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Union of India defended the NJAC as a legitimate constitutional reform intended to make judicial appointments more transparent and democratic.
• It was argued that the Collegium System lacked accountability and transparency and was criticised even by sitting judges.
• The government maintained that the amendment did not destroy judicial independence but balanced it with accountability.

The Supreme Court’s Judgment

On 16 October 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a 4:1 majority judgment striking down both the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the NJAC Act, 2014, as unconstitutional and void.
Majority Opinion (Justices Khehar, Lokur, Goel, and Joseph):

• The Court held that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• It ruled that the NJAC, by allowing executive participation and inclusion of “eminent persons”, diluted judicial primacy in appointments and hence compromised judicial independence.
• The Court reaffirmed the Collegium System as the constitutionally valid mechanism for judicial appointments.
• It also noted that while the Collegium System had flaws, these could be addressed through internal reforms rather than its replacement.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Chelameswar):

• Justice Chelameswar dissented, observing that the Collegium System lacked transparency and accountability.
• He supported the NJAC as a reformative measure that could make the appointment process more open and credible.

Impact and Significance

The NJAC judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s supremacy in controlling its own composition and protected the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. It reinforced the idea that judicial independence is an inviolable part of the basic structure.
The ruling, however, also reignited debates on the opacity and accountability of the Collegium System. In response, the Court initiated measures for reform, such as inviting suggestions from the public and the Bar on improving the Collegium’s functioning.
Key implications include:

• Restoration of the Collegium System as the exclusive mechanism for judicial appointments.
• Reassertion of the basic structure doctrine, first articulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
• Strengthened judicial review of constitutional amendments.
• Continuing discussion on the need for a balance between transparency and independence in judicial appointments.

Criticism and Subsequent Developments

While hailed as a victory for judicial independence, the judgment also drew criticism for perpetuating an insular and non-transparent appointment process. Critics argued that the judiciary effectively insulated itself from public accountability. Even some judges expressed discomfort with the lack of transparency in the Collegium’s functioning.
Following the judgment, the Supreme Court conducted hearings on Collegium reforms, resulting in procedural changes and greater publication of recommendations and reasons for appointments. However, the fundamental structure of the Collegium System remains intact.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) thus stands as a defining precedent in Indian constitutional law, encapsulating the enduring tension between judicial independence and institutional accountability. It remains one of the most significant judicial assertions of constitutional supremacy and the basic structure doctrine in the history of Indian democracy.