Part V: The Union

The Union Judiciary

Article 124C: Power of Parliament to make law

--- Original Article ---

Parliament may, by law, regulate the procedure for the appointment of Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts and empower the Commission to lay down by regulations the procedure for the discharge of its functions, the manner of selection of persons for appointment, and such other matters as may be considered necessary by it.

Amendment Section

1. Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 3 (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117.

Explanations

Article 124C was introduced to empower Parliament to regulate the procedure for appointing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India. It was part of a broader effort to enhance the transparency and accountability of the judicial appointments process. However, the constitutional amendment that established this article was invalidated by the Supreme Court, which restored the original Collegium system.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause 1 – Legislative Authority Over Judicial Appointments

Under Article 124C, Parliament was granted the authority to enact laws that would outline the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court, as well as Chief Justices and judges of the High Courts. Additionally, this article empowered the NJAC to frame its own regulations concerning the selection process and the functioning of the Commission. This provision gave Parliament a role in shaping how judicial appointments were managed, a significant shift from the previously insulated Collegium system.

Real-Life Examples

• The striking down of the NJAC is a prime example of how constitutional amendments can be challenged and overturned in a democracy. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case demonstrated how judicial independence is fiercely protected in India. The NJAC's creation sparked significant public and political debate. Some argued that it would make the judiciary more accountable, while others warned of the risks of executive interference. The decision to revert to the Collegium system reaffirmed the judiciary's self-governance, highlighting the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

Historical Context

Article 124C and the accompanying amendments reflect a moment of constitutional experimentation in India's judicial system. The attempt to replace the Collegium with the NJAC was a significant move towards reforming judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court's decision to strike down this amendment reinforced the principle of judicial independence, which has been a cornerstone of India's democratic structure. The debate over judicial appointments continues to resonate in India, and the legacy of Article 124C's brief existence serves as a reminder of the ongoing dialogue between reform and tradition in constitutional law.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

The Supreme Court in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India case in 2015 struck down Article 124C, along with the entire Ninety-ninth Amendment, stating that it violated the independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that judicial independence is part of the Constitution's "basic structure," which cannot be amended.

Legislative History

Article 124C was introduced through the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, as part of the NJAC framework. The NJAC was designed to replace the collegium system with a more transparent and accountable process involving both judicial and executive input. However, the Supreme Court invalidated the amendment in 2015, reinstating the collegium system for judicial appointments.

Debates and Amendments

The introduction of the NJAC was seen as a major reform aimed at increasing transparency in judicial appointments. However, during the debates, several members of the legal community expressed concerns that the NJAC could compromise the judiciary's independence by giving the executive too much influence over appointments. Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck down the Ninety-ninth Amendment and Article 124C, emphasizing that judicial independence is a fundamental part of the Constitution’s "basic structure."

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 124C, Power of Parliament to make law.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (2015).
• The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014.