Case Name: “Supreme Court AOR Association and Anr Vs. Union of India.
Citation: {2015} 13 SCR 1
COURT: Supreme Court Of India
Facts of the Case: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India
The petition challenges the validity of the ninety-ninth Amendment to the Constitution Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014, claiming that they alter the basic structure of the Indian constitution. The petitioner argues that the case should be referred to a Bench of Five judges as substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of the Constitution are involved.
They also seek interim relief to prevent the act from being enforced until the final disposal of the petitions. The opposing counsel contends that the petitions are premature since the Act has not come into force. They argue that no cause of action has arisen until the Act is enforced and request the rejection of the petitions.
Judgment of the Case: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India
In 1981 a landmark decision as the first judges case was made, stating that the chief justice of India’s recommendations for judicial appointments were not binding on the government. In 1990 a constitutional amendment bill proposing a National Judicial Commission for appointments was introduced but lapsed in 1991. In 1993 the second judges cases held that a collegiate opinion of judges was preferred over the chief justice’s opinion in appointments. In 1998 the third judges case clarified the role of the chief justice in appointments and transfers.
In 2000 a resolution for a national Commission to review the constitution was passed. In 2003 a constitutional amendment bill proposing changes in judicial appointments was introduced but lapsed in 2004. In 2013 the Congress-led government proposed a judicial appointments Commission, which lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. In 2014 bills amending article 124(2) and 217(1) were introduced. The National Judicial Appointments Commission bill and the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-first Amendment) bill were passed.
In 2014 both bills were passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. In 2014 a writ petition was filed and was disposed of prematurely. Again in 2014 the Constitution’s 121st Amendment bill received presidential assent and became the Constitution 99 Amendment Act 2014. In 2015 the present writ petition was filed challenging the constitutionality of the amendments.
The amendments primarily introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission and altered the process for the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, leading to legal challenges.
CONSTITUTION OF NATIONAL JUDICIAL COMISSION (NJC) :
Composition of NJC (147A)
The president will constitute the NJC. Member of NJC include: Chief justice of India (chairperson), Two other judges of the Supreme court. Union minster in-change of Law and justice. One eminent citizen nominated by the president in consultation with the prime minster (holding office for three years). In case of high court judgement appointments or transfers, the Chief justice of the respective high court and cheif minster or governor are associated.
Function of NJC (147A)
Appointment and transfer: Recommending persons for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court, chief justice and judges of high courts. Recommending transfer of chief justice ms and judges among high courts.
Code of ethics: Formulating a code of ethics for judges of the Supreme Court, chief justices, and judges of high courts.
Inquiry into misconduct: conducting inquiries into cases of misconduct or deviant behaviour of a judge (other than those requiring removal) Advising the chief justice of India or chief of a high court based on the inquiry.
Binding Recommendations: Recommendation made by NJC are binding
Appointment confirmation: No person not recommended by NJC can be appointed as a judge by the president.
Regulate Procedures: NJC has the power to regulate its own Procedure, including the inquiry Procedure.
Amendments of Articles in the constitution:
Article 124(2): every judge of the SC is appointed by the president after consultation with judges of the SC and HC. Cheif justice of India must always be consulted for the appointment of judges (other than the chief justice)
Article 217(1): Every judge of a high court is appointed by the president after the consultation with the CJI, Governor of the state, and chief justice of the high court. The judge holds office until the age of sixty two.
Article 222(1): President can transfer a judge from one high court to another after consultation with the chief justice of India.
Article 231(2)(a): Reference to the chief Minister in Article 147A is constructed as a reference to chief minster of all states.
Supreme Court AOR Association and Anr Vs. Union of India.
Also Read: Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Umesh Nayak
One thought on “Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India”