Collegium system of Supreme Court and High Courts of India, based on the precedence established by the "Three Judges Cases", is a legally valid system of appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court of India (SC) and all High Courts of India (HC). The judges in lower courts below the level of HC are appointed by respective HC Collegium. SC and all HCs have their own separate collegium. Each collegium is composed of five people, including the Chief Justice of the relevant court who is also the head of collegium, and four senior most judges of that court. In this system of checks and balance, which ensures the independence of senior judiciary in India, the SC or HC collegium selects and recommends to Chief Justice of India (CJI) the names of judges to be appointed or transferred. CJI has the authority to reject or approve the recommended names. The names approved by the CJI are sent to the Government of India (GoI). GoI's role is restricted to undertaking character verification and national security clearance by the Intelligence Bureau (IB), or raising any objections and clarifications to CJI. If CJI ignores the objections by the GoI, and the same name is sent again to the GoI by the collegium after the re-approval by CJI, then GoI is legally bound to accept the name for the appointment or transfer. GoI sends the approved names to President of India who issues a warrant of appointment (authorisation). Finally, the GoI publishes a notice in weekly The Gazette of India. After this notification the order of appointment comes into legal effect.
Collegium system developed gradually as a result of precedence established by three separate cases in the Supreme Court of India pertaining to this issue, i.e. it did not come into existence through an Act of Parliament or by a provision of the Constitution of India.This closed door system with no published rules or eligibility criteria, no oversight by the parliament or the executive, and without independent review or appeal process, has been criticised for the lack of transparency, where often the lawyers aspiring to be appointed have no idea if their name was considered by the collegium or not.
Following are the three cases:
Over the course of the three different cases brought to the supreme court of India, 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 [ citation needed ], the Parliament and the executive, both have done little to replace it. The Third Judges Case of 1998 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.was issued in 1993. There is no mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution of India or in successive amendments. Although the creation of the collegium system was viewed as controversial by legal scholars and jurists outside India
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.
In July 2013, Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam spoke against any attempts to change the collegium system.
On 5 September 2013, the Rajya Sabha passed The Constitution(120th Amendment) bill, 2013, that amends articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and establishes the National Judicial Appointments Commission, on whose recommendation the President would appoint judges to the higher judiciary.
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.
The SC has upheld the legal validity of the current collegium system, and the Constitution of India has the following two Articles related to this issue:
"Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years. Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted."
And Article 217:
:Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.:
In judgement on the presidential reference, Supreme Court has dealt elaborately, 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.
The Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014 passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014 to scrap the collegium system of appointment of Judges. The President of India has given his assent to the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 on 31 December 2014, after which the bill has been renamed as the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
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.Supreme Court declared that NJAC is interfering with the autonomy of the judiciary by the executive which amounts to tampering of the basic structure of the constitution where parliament is not empowered to change the basic structure. However Supreme Court has acknowledged that the collegium system of judges appointing judges is lacking transparency and credibility which would be rectified/improved by the Judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial court under the Constitution of India, the highest constitutional court, with the power of judicial review. Consisting of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 34 judges, it has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions. It is regarded as the most powerful public institution in India.
The chief justice of India is the head of the judiciary of India and the Supreme Court of India. The CJI also heads their administrative functions.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute adopted on September 24, 1789, in 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.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court in the judicial hierarchy of Pakistan.
The Midnight Judges Act represented an effort to solve an issue in the U.S. Supreme Court during the early 19th century. There was concern, beginning in 1789, about the system that required the Justices of the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" and reiterate decisions made in the appellate level courts. The Supreme Court Justices had often voiced concern and suggested that the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts be divided. President Thomas Jefferson did not want the judiciary to gain more power over the executive branch.
The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle, most notably propounded by Justice Hans Raj Khanna, that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. Key among these "basic features", as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of a power of the Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. Thus it gives extra power to court to review and strike down any constitutional amendments and act enacted by the Parliament.
The judiciary of Pakistan is a hierarchical system with two classes of courts: the superior judiciary and the subordinate judiciary. The superior judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court and five High Courts, with the Supreme Court at the apex. There is a High Court for each of the four provinces as well as a High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Constitution of Pakistan entrusts the superior judiciary with the obligation to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to Tribal Areas, except otherwise provided for. The disputed regions of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan have separate court systems.
The judiciary is a system of courts which interpret and apply the law. The role of the courts is to decide cases by determining the relevant facts and the relevant law, and applying the relevant facts to the relevant law. The Indian Judiciary administers a common law system in which customs, securities and legislation, all codify the law of the land. It has, in fact, inherited the legacy of the legal system established by the then colonial powers and the princely states since the mid-19th century, and has partly retained the characteristics of practices from the ancient and medieval times.
The judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore work in the Supreme Court and the State Courts to hear and determine disputes between litigants in civil cases and, in criminal matters, to determine the liability of accused persons and their sentences if they are convicted.
Shanti Bhushan is a former Law Minister of India holding office at the Ministry of Law and Justice from 1977 to 1979 in the Morarji Desai Ministry. He is 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.
The Chief Justice of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is the head of the judiciary of Sri Lanka and the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. Established in 1801, the Chief Justice is one of ten Supreme Court justices; the other nine are the Puisne Justices of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. The post was created in 1801. The Chief Justice is nominated by the Constitutional Council, and appointed by the President. The first Chief Justice was Codrington Edmund Carrington. The 47th and current Chief Justice is Jayantha Jayasuriya.
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 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.
Ajit Nath Ray was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India from 25 April 1973 till his retirement on 28 January 1977.
Altamas Kabir was an Indian lawyer and judge, who served as the 39th Chief Justice of India.
Jagdish Singh Khehar was the 44th Chief Justice of India (CJI). Khehar is the first CJI 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 Judgement. He was succeeded by Justice Deepak Misra.
Justice Dipak Misra is an eminent Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also a former Chief Justice of the Patna and Delhi High Courts. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991. He succeeded J. S. Khehar, the 44th Chief Justice.
Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph is a Judge of Supreme Court of India. He is former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court. Before his appointment as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 31 July 2014, he had served as a Judge of Kerala High Court for more than 9 years.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment with the Constitution 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 Thomas was an Indian lawyer who initiated improvement and change to existing laws by filing petitions in India's highest court and regional courts. Thomas' petitions resulted in changes to laws to prevent convicted politicians getting elected, the addition of a new marriage law and protections for parliamentarians. Thomas was hailed most notably for petitioning to amend the Representation of the People Act.
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan is a commission for the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges in Pakistan. The Chief Justice of Pakistan is the Chairman of JCP.