Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
Commonly known as:
NJAC Case.
Also called:
Fourth Judges Case.
Supreme Court of India.
The case concerns:
Before the NJAC, judicial appointments were governed by the:
Collegium system.
The collegium emerged through:
The collegium gave:
Primacy to the judiciary
in recommending appointments and transfers of judges.
The collegium system was criticised for:
The government and Parliament sought to create:
A broader institutional mechanism.
The:
Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014
created the constitutional framework for:
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Parliament also enacted:
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
The NJAC framework consisted of:
Constitutional Amendment + Ordinary Parliamentary Act.
The NJAC was proposed to consist of:
Two eminent persons were to be selected by a committee consisting of:
At least one of the two eminent persons was to be:
From among SC/ST/OBC communities, women, or minorities.
The NJAC was intended to recommend appointments to:
It would also deal with:
Transfers of High Court judges.
The 99th Amendment inserted:
Articles 124A, 124B and 124C.
→ Composition of NJAC.
→ Functions of NJAC.
→ Parliament's power to make law concerning NJAC procedure.
Petitioners argued that:
NJAC undermined judicial independence.
The central question:
Does the NJAC framework damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court had previously recognised:
Judicial independence
as a fundamental constitutional principle and part of:
Basic Structure.
By:
4:1 majority,
the Supreme Court:
Struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014.
The:
Collegium system
was restored.
The majority concluded that:
The NJAC framework diluted the primacy of the judiciary
in judicial appointments.
Judges may have to decide cases involving:
Therefore:
The appointment mechanism must preserve judicial independence from political influence.
The Court treated:
Independence of the judiciary
as part of:
Basic Structure.
The NJAC contained:
Two non-judicial members
with an important role in appointments.
The majority considered this capable of:
Diluting judicial primacy.
The NJAC framework gave substantial blocking power to:
Any two members.
This raised the concern that:
The judicial component could be prevented from recommending a candidate.
The Court did not hold:
Every participation by non-judicial members is unconstitutional.
The concern was specifically about:
The degree of institutional influence
and its impact on:
Judicial independence.
The NJAC was defended on grounds including:
The majority held that:
Improving transparency and accountability cannot come at the cost of destroying judicial independence.
The Court prioritised:
Judicial independence
as a foundational constitutional requirement.
Because the NJAC was invalidated:
The earlier collegium system became operative again.
The Court did not conclude that:
The collegium is perfect.
The Court acknowledged concerns regarding:
It indicated a willingness to consider:
Improvements in the collegium system.
Following the judgment, the judiciary began discussions concerning:
Reform of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
The judgment reflects a major institutional conflict:
Parliament/Executive
vs
Judiciary.
Parliament can:
Amend the Constitution.
But:
Cannot destroy Basic Structure.
The case is an application of:
Kesavananda Bharati's Basic Structure Doctrine.
The relevant principle:
Independence of the judiciary.
Executive primacy.
Judicial primacy.
Collegium clarified and expanded.
NJAC struck down; collegium restored.
The NJAC judgment is commonly known as:
Fourth Judges Case.
It represents the next major stage in the judicial-appointments jurisprudence after the three Judges Cases.
| Collegium | NJAC |
|---|---|
| Judicially evolved | Constitutionally created |
| Judicial primacy | Mixed institutional participation |
| Judges dominate recommendations | Judges + Executive + eminent persons |
| Retained after 2015 judgment | Struck down |
Judicial independence.
Transparency and accountability concerns.
Wider participation and potential transparency.
Risk of executive/political influence.
The real issue is:
How should India balance judicial independence, accountability, transparency and democratic legitimacy in judicial appointments?
Requires:
Requires:
The judiciary must remain sufficiently independent because it:
Reviews actions of the legislature and executive.
Judicial appointments therefore cannot be designed in a way that:
Substantially compromises judicial independence.
Do not say:
NJAC was struck down because the executive had any role at all.
The constitutional concern was:
The structure and extent of non-judicial influence.
Do not say:
Collegium is expressly written in the Constitution.
Correct:
It is judicially evolved through the Judges Cases.
Do not say:
Supreme Court unanimously rejected NJAC.
Correct:
4:1 majority.
Justice:
J. Chelameswar
gave the principal dissent.
Justice Chelameswar broadly favoured:
NJAC
and criticised the:
Lack of transparency of the collegium system.
The dissent is important because it highlighted:
Judicial accountability
and:
Transparency concerns.
Judicial independence must be protected through judicial primacy.
Collegium lacks sufficient transparency and accountability; broader institutional participation can be justified.
99th Amendment:
Unconstitutional.
NJAC Act:
Unconstitutional.
Collegium:
Restored.
The case reinforces the proposition:
Judicial independence is not merely an institutional preference; it is constitutionally protected.
The judgment reinforces:
Basic Structure limits Parliament's amendment power.
India does not follow:
Unlimited parliamentary sovereignty.
The Supreme Court can:
Review constitutional amendments
for:
Basic Structure violations.
Established Basic Structure.
Applied Basic Structure to judicial appointments.
Limited amending power is Basic Structure.
Judicial independence is Basic Structure.
Constitution → Consultation
↓
S.P. Gupta → Executive primacy
↓
Second Judges Case → Judicial primacy
↓
Third Judges Case → Collegium expanded
↓
NJAC → Mixed appointments mechanism
↓
NJAC Case → Collegium restored
Supreme Court judges.
High Court judges.
Transfer of High Court judges.
Constitutional amendment.
Presidential reference.
124A → NJAC composition.
124B → NJAC functions.
124C → Parliamentary power regarding procedure.
No.
The Supreme Court struck down:
99th Amendment + NJAC Act
in:
The:
Collegium system
continues to operate.
The continuing challenge is:
Improving collegium transparency without compromising judicial independence.
Potential reforms include:
The NJAC debate demonstrates:
Institutional design can affect constitutional independence.
A constitutionally independent judiciary must also retain:
Public legitimacy.
Appointment mechanisms reflect:
Distribution of institutional influence among constitutional organs.
The case illustrates that:
Basic Structure applies not only to classic rights provisions but also to institutional arrangements central to constitutional democracy.
The best formulation is:
"The NJAC judgment illustrates the constitutional tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability: the Court protected judicial primacy as Basic Structure, but the dissent exposed the transparency and accountability deficit of the collegium."
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India.
2015.
NJAC Case / Fourth Judges Case.
99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014.
NJAC Act, 2014.
4:1.
Basic Structure.
Judicial independence.
NJAC struck down.
Restored.
Justice J. Chelameswar.
NJAC was created by an ordinary Act alone.
❌ Wrong.
It required:
99th Constitutional Amendment + NJAC Act.
NJAC was upheld.
❌ Wrong.
Struck down in 2015.
The NJAC case was decided unanimously.
❌ Wrong.
4:1 majority.
Collegium was created by the 99th Amendment.
❌ Wrong.
It was judicially evolved through:
Second + Third Judges Cases.
Justice Chelameswar supported the collegium.
❌ Wrong.
He was the:
Principal dissenting judge favouring NJAC.
The Court rejected any executive participation in appointments as unconstitutional.
❌ Too broad.
The concern was:
Institutional structure and its effect on judicial independence.
99th Amendment is still operative.
❌ Wrong.
It was:
Struck down.
First Judges Case → Executive primacy.
Second Judges Case → Judicial primacy.
Third Judges Case → Collegium expanded.
99th Amendment + NJAC Act.
NJAC Case → 99th Amendment + NJAC Act struck down.
First Judges Case → Executive primacy
↓
Second Judges Case → Judicial primacy
↓
Third Judges Case → Collegium
↓
NJAC → Mixed institutional model
↓
NJAC Case → Collegium retained
→ Protected as Basic Structure.
→ Major criticism of collegium.
→ Central reform challenge.
→ Institutional balance.
→ Basic Structure limit.
The NJAC Case, formally Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), was a landmark constitutional decision on judicial appointments. By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court invalidated the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, holding that the institutional design diluted judicial independence, a component of the Basic Structure.
Justice Chelameswar:
Supported NJAC and criticised collegium opacity.
Need:
Independence + Transparency + Accountability + Diversity.
The NJAC judgment preserved judicial primacy as a constitutional safeguard, but it did not resolve the deeper institutional question: how to make judicial appointments transparent and accountable without exposing the judiciary to political control.
