"Supreme Court Judge Defends Collegium System Against Executive Criticism"
Collegium system
judge-made mechanism where the Chief Justice and senior judges recommend judicial appointments and transfers.
NJAC
National Judicial Appointments Commission, a 2014 law struck down in 2015 for violating judicial independence.
Judicial appointments to the higher judiciary rest on Article 124 for the Supreme Court and Article 217 for High Courts. Both provisions require the President to consult the Chief Justice of India before an appointment is made. The constitutional text speaks only of consultation, not concurrence. The Second Judges Case (1993) read this consultation to mean the Chief Justice's opinion must prevail, giving birth to the collegium system. The Third Judges Case (1998) went further, requiring the Chief Justice to consult the four senior-most judges before recommending any name, turning individual discretion into a collective, judge-led process. When Parliament tried to replace this with the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which would have added the Law Minister and two eminent persons to the selection body, the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015 for violating the basic structure doctrine's guarantee of judicial independence.
Even so, judicial appointments are not a judiciary-only affair. The President's assent under Article 124(2) is one of several constitutional safeguards built around a judge's office. Judicial salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, which shields them from an annual parliamentary vote. A judge can be removed only through impeachment by Parliament, not by any unilateral executive or even judicial action. These three features together are what the Constitution actually offers as protection for judicial autonomy, distinct from the collegium's internal working. Before any name reaches the President, it also passes through the state government, the Union Home Ministry and intelligence inputs, so the executive already has real influence over appointments without a formal seat at the collegium table.
The collegium's day-to-day working is governed by a Memorandum of Procedure, a document negotiated between the judiciary and the government that lays out how names move from High Courts to the collegium and then to the President. In practice, friction arises less from the legal text and more from delay. The collegium can reiterate a name it has already sent once; under the Second Judges Case, a reiterated recommendation is meant to bind the government to act. In practice, governments have at times avoided formally rejecting names while simply not acting on them for years, a strategy sometimes called sitting on recommendations. …
What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
1.While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
2.The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
3.The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding the appointment and tenure of Supreme Court judges in India:
1.The President appoints judges after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
2.A Supreme Court judge can be removed from office only through a process of impeachment by Parliament.
3.The salaries of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court primarily on which ground?
As per the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the selection committee for appointing the CEC and ECs comprises:
Match List I (Judges Case) with List II (its principal holding) regarding judicial appointments:
List I:
1.First Judges Case (1981)
2.Second Judges Case (1993)
3.Third Judges Case (1998)
List II:
A.Required the Chief Justice to consult four senior-most judges before recommending names
B.Gave the executive primacy in judicial appointments
C.Established that the Chief Justice's opinion must prevail
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account