Collegium system

Last updated

The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges, which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due to the lack of representation of marginalised communities, i.e., OBCs, SCs and STs, in the Supreme Court and high courts. [1]

Contents

The cases

Following are the three cases:

  1. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India – 1981 [2] (also known as the Judges' Transfer case)
  2. Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India – 1993 [3]
  3. In re Special Reference 1 of 1998 [4]

Over the course of the three cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state, – including the legislature and the executive, – would have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium system, which has been in use since the judgment in the Second Judges Case [3] was issued in 1993. There is no explicit mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution of India or in successive amendments.

The Third Judges Case of 1998 [4] is not a case but an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court of India responding to a question of law regarding the collegium system, raised by then President of India K. R. Narayanan, in July 1998 under his constitutional powers.

Further, in January 2013, the court dismissed as without locus standi, a public interest litigation filed by NGO Suraz India Trust that sought to challenge the collegium system of appointment. [5]

In July 2013, Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam spoke against any attempts to change the collegium system. [6]

On 5 September 2013, the Rajya Sabha passed the Constitution (120th Amendment) bill, 2013, which amends articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950, and establishes the Judicial Appointments Commission, on whose recommendation the President would appoint judges to the higher judiciary. [7] This bill never became an Act.

The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional on 16 October 2015. The constitutional bench of Justices J. S. Khehar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar upheld it. [8]

Judicial meaning of the word "Recommendation"

In its judgement on the presidential reference, Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the modality of rendering recommendation by a constitutional entity such as Supreme Court, President of India, etc. It is not at the discretion of the person consulted to render the recommendation but internal consultations with the peers shall be made in writing, and the recommendation shall be made in accordance with the internal consultations. [4] Here, internal consultations refer to panels of existing Supreme Court judges appointed by existing judges.

National Judicial Appointments Commission Act

The Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014 passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014 and the Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014 to scrap the collegium system of appointment of Judges. The President of India gave his assent to the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 on 31 December 2014, after which the bills became National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 respectively.

99th Amendment and NJAC Act quashed by Supreme court

By a majority opinion of 4:1, on 16 October 2015, Supreme Court struck down the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act restoring the two-decade-old collegium system of judges appointing judges in higher judiciary. [9] [10] [11] Supreme Court declared that NJAC is interfering with the autonomy of the judiciary by the executive which amounts to tampering with the basic structure of the constitution where parliament is not empowered to change the basic structure. However, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that the collegium system of judges appointing judges is lacking transparency and credibility which would be rectified or improved by the Judiciary.

Current members of Collegium

For High Court elevation

1. D. Y. Chandrachud, The Chief Justice of India. [12]

2. Sanjiv Khanna, Judge, Supreme Court of India. [12]

3. B. R. Gavai, Judge, Supreme Court of India. [12]

For Supreme Court elevation

4. Surya Kant, Judge, Supreme Court of India. [12]

5. Hrishikesh Roy, Judge, Supreme Court of India. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of India</span> Presiding judge of the Supreme Court of India

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) (ISO: Bhārat kē Mukhya Nyāyādhīśa) is the highest-ranking officer of the Indian judiciary and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Constitution of India grants power to the President of India to appoint, as recommended by the outgoing chief justice in consultation with other judges, (as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution) the next chief justice, who will serve until they reach the age of 65 or are removed by the constitutional process of impeachment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> United States law establishing the federal court system

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Pakistan</span> National judicial system

The judiciary of Pakistan is the national system of courts that maintains the law and order in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan uses a common law system, which was introduced during the colonial era, influenced by local medieval judicial systems based on religious and cultural practices. The Constitution of Pakistan lays down the fundamentals and working of the Pakistani judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Russia</span> Russian constitutional court

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is a high court within the judiciary of Russia which is empowered to rule on whether certain laws or presidential decrees are in fact contrary to the Constitution of Russia. Its objective is only to protect the Constitution and deal with a few kinds of disputes where it has original jurisdiction, whereas the highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court of Russia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of India</span> National court system

The judiciary of India is the system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. The Constitution of India provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India. India uses a mixed legal system based majorly on the common law system with civil laws applicable in certain territories in combination with certain religion specific personal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shanti Bhushan</span> Indian politician and lawyer (1925–2023)

Shanti Bhushan was an Indian politician and lawyer. He served as the Law Minister of India holding office at the Ministry of Law and Justice from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai Ministry. He was a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India. He, along with his son Prashant Bhushan, was featured at 74th position in a list of the most powerful Indians published by The Indian Express in 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. S. Verma</span> 27th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. N. Ray</span> 14th Chief Justice of India

Ajit Nath Ray was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India from 25 April 1973 till his retirement on 28 January 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jasti Chelameswar</span> Indian judge (born 1953)

Jasti Chelameswar is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He retired on 22 June 2018 as the second most senior supreme court judge. He previously served as the chief justice of the Kerala High Court from 2010 to 2011 and the Gauhati High Court from 2007 to 2010. He was also one of the four judges who held a controversial press conference against Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jagdish Singh Khehar</span> 44th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Singh Khehar is a former senior advocate and a former judge, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India in 2017. Khehar is the first chief justice from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy verdict. He was succeeded by Justice Dipak Misra.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Judicial Appointments Commission</span> Failed proposal for an Indian legal body

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judicial officers, legal officers and legal employees under the government of India and in all state governments of India. The commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the 99th constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme Court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.

Lily Isabel Thomas was an Indian lawyer who initiated improvement and change to existing laws by filing petitions in India's apex court, the Supreme Court of India and regional courts. Her petitions resulted in changes to laws to prevent convicted politicians getting elected, the addition of a new marriage law and protections for parliamentarians. She was hailed most notably for petitioning to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

S. Muralidhar is an Indian lawyer and a former Judge. He was the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of South Korea</span> Judicial branch of the Republic of Korea

The judiciary of South Korea is the judicial branch (사법부) of South Korean central government, established by Chapter 5 and 6 of the Constitution of South Korea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2014, formed a National Judicial Appointments Commission. 16 State assemblies out of 29 States including Goa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Gujarat and Telangana ratified the Central Legislation, enabling the President of India to give assent to the bill. The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015.

References

  1. ↑ "Madras High Court judge alleges caste bias in collegium system". The Indian Express. 9 November 2015. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
  2. ↑ Bhagwati, P. "S. P. Gupta v. President of India". indiankanoon.org. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  3. 1 2 Verma (for the majority), J S. "Supreme Court Advocates-on-RecorIndia". indiankanoon.org. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 Barucha, S. P. "In re Special Reference 1 of 1998". indiankanoon.org. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  5. ↑ Express News Service. "Apex court junks PIL to revisit collegium system". The Indian Express. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  6. ↑ "No need to change collegium system : Justice Sathasivam". NiTi Central. 3 July 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  7. ↑ "Elders Clear bill to set up Judicial Appointment Commission". The Hindu. 5 October 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013.
  8. ↑ "NJAC Act unconstitutional, collegium system to continue: Apex Court". Business Line. Chennai. Press Trust of India. 16 October 2015. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
  9. ↑ "SC declares NJAC unconstitutional; Chelameswar J dissents [Read Judgment]". 1, Law Street. 16 October 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  10. ↑ "Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015". Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 26 June 2021.
  11. ↑ "SC Bench strikes down NJAC Act as 'unconstitutional and void'". The Hindu. 17 October 2015. Retrieved 17 October 2015.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 "Collegium likely to finalise four names as judges of SC". Hindustan Times. 5 July 2023. Retrieved 30 October 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.