Neo- Collegium: The Legacy of Fourth Judges’ Case

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

In the long drawn battle, the tussle between executive and judiciary has touched another milestone where they have reached the point from which there is no turning back. . The Supreme Court in its recent celebrated judgment of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association and another Vs. Union of India, also popularly known as the Fourth judges’ case, has amicably preserved the independence of judiciary and declared the 99th Amendment Act and NJAC Act, 2014 to be “unconstitutional and void”.

After as many as 24 hearings on the matter, spanning over three months, it comes across most definitely that the decision reached would not have beenan easy one. After all, the preservation of the basic structure of the Constitution is the paramount task of the judiciary and any attempt to interfere in the same needs the serious deliberations.

The constitutional bench led by Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, pronounced the historic judgment on October 16, 2015 in the favor of Petitioners, where they accepted the contentions of NJAC Act being violative of the Independence of Judiciary and therefore, in violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. As a consequence of the same, the old form of appointing the Supreme Court and High Court Judges, i.e., the collegium method shall prevail but with improved amour.

The call for this Neo-collegium system of appointment was made on November 2, 2015 when Supreme Court again heard the matter for reforming the old collegium system. In this regard, the Apex Court invited recommendations from all in this country.

The judgment was rendered in the ratio of 4:1, where the only judge who put forth a dissenting opinion was Justice Chelameswar. He noted against the majority declaration on NJAC by stating that, “I do not find anything inherently illegal about such a prescription that the two members of the NJAC can override the opinion of the other four and stall the recommendation (emphasis added).” He pointed out that, “Only an independent and efficient judicial system can create confidence in the society which it serves. The ever increasing pendency of matters before various constitutional courts of this country is clearly not a certificate of efficiency.” At this juncture, for a better understanding of the issues at hand, it would be best to revisit the reasons for which such a decision was reached by the judges, which led to these concerns being raised and discussed not only within the judiciary, but throughout the country among academicians, practitioners, students etc.

Appointment of the eminent persons:

Much concern was raised regarding the arbitrariness in the appointment of “two” eminent persons in the committee formed by NJAC for the selection of judges. There were no standards laid in this regard, as to who shall be those two eminent persons or in what manner they shall be selected. This ambiguity was much debated among concerned people and therefore, was an inescapable drawback.

Also, the committee formed for the appointment of these eminent persons comprises of the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and the Leader of opposition. Now, it is undisputed that the government is the largest litigator in the courts. Therefore, the involvement of the executive in the appointment process alongwith the CJI was sure to undermine the institutional integrity of the judiciary and thereby its independence.

Veto power of the two members of the NJAC:

Through this veto power, which is given to any member of the committee under NJAC, any two members can reject the selection of a member. Well, that may not appear to be an arbitrary act but what makes it arbitrary is the presence of no standard as to how this power of veto is to be exercised. Without these standards, there may occur a constitutional crisis where no such appointment may take place at all..

Also, it should be noted that by the virtue of the provision of providing veto to every member of the committee, the benefit of such provision shall also be availed by those two eminent persons. The contention that in what capacity would these two members be in a position to overrule the decision of the three senior most judges which includes the CJI, also caught the attention of the people concerned.

Independence of judiciary and the basic structure doctrine:

Right from the 1973 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Keshvananda Bharti case, the basic structure doctrine always stood firm against the ambitious and arbitrary attempt of the legislative and the executive to mould the Constitution in their favour. But through judicial interpretation, the addition of Independence of judiciary into Basic structure doctrine has given in the hands of the judiciary an efficient tool for the successful check on arbitrary interference.

The quest for maintaining such judicial independence from the executive started from the First Judges case [S.P Gupta vs. Union of India] and has continued till date. Through the NJAC Act, the Union Minister of Law and Justice becomes the ex-officio member of the selection committee for the judges. This position not only violates the independence of the judiciary in the appointment of judges but also violates the doctrine of Separation of Power. Therefore, the involvement of the legislative/executive organs was condemned at the highest level and was a major ground for rejection by the guardians of the Constitution.


The above contention, no doubt, holds merit and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court through its judgment in the Fourth Judges’ case revolves around the above contentions only. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, on behalf of the majority pronounced that, “Clause (a) and (b) of Article 124A(1) are insufficient to preserve the primacy of the judiciary…The same are accordingly, violative of the principle of “independence of Judiciary”…That clause (c) of Article 124(1) is ultra vires the provision of the constitution, because of the inclusion of the Union minister in charge of Law and Justice…(this) in my view, impinges upon the principles of “independence of the judiciary”, as well as, “separation of power”…also…clause (d) of Article 124A(1) which provide for the inclusion of two “eminent person” as Member of NJAC is ultra vires the provision of the constitution, for a variety of reasons…I am of the considered view, that all the clauses (a) to (d) of Article 124A(1) are liable to be set aside”.

This resulted in automatically striking down of the entire Constitutional (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 which was pronounced liable to be set aside as being ultra vires the provision of the Constitution. With this judgment, the Supreme Court made its intention clear that in any circumstance, it shall not allow the executive/legislative to play a substantive role in the appointment process for the judiciary. Its order dated November 2, 2015 had called for a nation-wide response to propose recommendations for the improvement of the present collegium system. And soon in the coming hearing, it may be possible that effective changes may be seen in the appointment process which will be devoid of any violation of the very spirit of the Constitution.

Featured Photo Courtesy:

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -