Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (2015) – Fourth Judges Case
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (2015)
(Also known as the Fourth Judges Case)
✅ 1. Case Citation
Case Title: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. vs Union of India
Citation: (2016) 5 SCC 1
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2015
Bench Strength: Constitution Bench of 5 judges
Judges: Justice J.S. Khehar (CJI), Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Adarsh K. Goel, and Justice J. Chelameswar
✅ 2. Background and Context
This case dealt with the constitutionality of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a body created to replace the existing Collegium System for the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary (i.e., High Courts and Supreme Court).
The NJAC was established under:
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
These aimed to bring transparency and accountability in judicial appointments by giving executive and non-judicial members a role in the process.
✅ 3. What Was Challenged?
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) challenged the NJAC, arguing that:
It violated the independence of the judiciary, a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The presence of non-judicial members (especially the “eminent persons” and the Law Minister) undermined judicial primacy in appointments.
The NJAC mechanism lacked adequate safeguards for ensuring an independent judiciary.
✅ 4. Key Legal Issues
Whether the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act were constitutional?
Whether the independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure?
Whether the Collegium system should be restored?
✅ 5. Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the NJAC and the 99th Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure doctrine.
⚖️ Majority Opinion (Justices Khehar, Lokur, Joseph, Goel):
Independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The NJAC, by allowing executive participation and non-judicial members in judicial appointments, undermines this independence.
The Law Minister and eminent persons in NJAC could potentially block judicial appointments even if the judges in the NJAC agreed — compromising judicial primacy.
Hence, both the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act were declared void.
⚖️ Dissenting Opinion (Justice J. Chelameswar):
The Collegium system is opaque, unaccountable, and lacks transparency.
Supported NJAC as a more transparent and inclusive system.
Emphasized accountability in public institutions, including the judiciary.
✅ 6. What Is the Collegium System?
A system developed by the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases.
In this system, a Collegium of senior Supreme Court judges, headed by the Chief Justice of India, recommends names for judicial appointments and transfers.
The executive has a limited role, primarily in formality and background checks.
✅ 7. Impact of the Judgment
Struck down the NJAC and 99th Constitutional Amendment.
Restored the Collegium System of appointments and transfers.
Triggered debates on judicial accountability, transparency, and checks and balances.
Led to the Supreme Court agreeing to reform the Collegium (through improved procedures, though no significant reforms were finalized).
✅ 8. Significance of the Case
📌 A. Basic Structure Doctrine Reaffirmed
The ruling emphasized that even constitutional amendments can be struck down if they violate the basic structure, especially judicial independence.
📌 B. Judicial Independence Protected
Asserted that the judiciary must remain free from executive or legislative interference in appointments.
📌 C. Judicial Supremacy in Appointments
Strengthened the principle of judicial primacy in the appointment and transfer of judges.
📌 D. Triggered Reform Debates
Even though NJAC was struck down, the Court acknowledged flaws in the Collegium system, particularly lack of transparency and accountability.
Led to public pressure for reforming the appointment process.
✅ 9. Criticism of the Judgment
Critics argue that the Court protected its own power by striking down a mechanism designed to democratize judicial appointments.
Many believe that judicial independence does not require judicial exclusivity.
The lack of transparency in the Collegium system remains a major concern.
Parliament had passed NJAC unanimously, reflecting will of the people, which was overruled by the judiciary.
✅ 10. Subsequent Developments
After the judgment, the Supreme Court invited suggestions for improving the Collegium system.
However, the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointments has still not been finalized after years of discussion between the judiciary and the government.
Tensions between the executive and judiciary over judicial appointments have continued.
✅ 11. Summary Table
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India |
| Citation | (2016) 5 SCC 1 |
| Common Name | Fourth Judges Case |
| Main Issue | Constitutionality of NJAC and 99th Amendment |
| Verdict | NJAC and 99th Amendment struck down as unconstitutional |
| Reason | Violation of judicial independence (basic structure) |
| Majority Opinion | Justices Khehar, Lokur, Kurian Joseph, Goel |
| Dissenting Opinion | Justice J. Chelameswar |
| System Restored | Collegium system |
| Legal Doctrine Reaffirmed | Basic Structure Doctrine |
✅ 12. Conclusion
The Fourth Judges Case is a defining moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. It reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in appointments to the higher judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. However, it also highlighted the lack of transparency and the urgent need for reform in the judicial appointment process — a debate that remains alive even today.
RELATED Blog
0 comments