National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and Its Invalidation (Article 124A)

At a Glance

• What it is The body created in 2014 to replace the collegium, struck down in 2015
• Created by 99th Amendment Act and NJAC Act, 2014
• Article Articles 124A to 124C
• Struck down Fourth Judges case, 2015, for violating judicial independence
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Higher Judiciary

Where Does It Fit?

This is the last topic of the category on the Higher Judiciary. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 replaced the collegium system of appointing judges with the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

What the 99th Amendment Did

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 replaced the collegium system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts with a new body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission. It inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C: Article 124A established the Commission, Article 124B defined its functions, and Article 124C empowered Parliament to make laws regulating the procedure for appointment and the functions of the Commission. Parliament then passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. The NJAC was to consist of the Chief Justice of India as chairperson, two other senior judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.

The Fourth Judges Case (2015)

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), also called the Fourth Judges case or the NJAC case, the Supreme Court declared the 99th Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it affects the independence of the judiciary, which is one of the components of the basic structure of the Constitution. It also declared the NJAC Act unconstitutional and void. It declared the earlier collegium system operative again, and ordered the case listed to consider the introduction of appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the collegium system. Consequently, both the Amendment and the Act became invalid and the collegium system was restored.

Why It Matters

The judgment shows the interplay between Parliament and the Court. Parliament used its amending power under Article 368 to change the appointment system, and the Court tested the amendment against the basic structure doctrine from the Kesavananda Bharati case. It held that independence of the judiciary is part of that structure and that the NJAC would affect it. The case is one of the landmark judgments in the list of cases on judicial review, together with Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills and S.R. Bommai. It also shows that a constitutional amendment, even one passed by a special majority and ratified by states, can be struck down.

Lessons for Exam Preparation

Three lessons stand out. First, the judiciary can test a constitutional amendment against the basic structure and invalidate it, as it did with the 99th Amendment. Second, independence of the judiciary is a component of the basic structure. Third, the history of appointment moves in a sequence: the original text with consultation, the First Judges case with consultation as exchange of views, the Second with concurrence, the Third with the collegium of four, the NJAC in 2014 and finally the collegium again in 2015. An answer that traces this sequence, with the years, scores well in both Prelims and Mains.

Appendix Entry and Key Points

Among the constitutional amendments, the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 is listed with the note that it replaced the collegium system with the NJAC, that the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional and void in 2015, and that the earlier collegium system became operative again. Articles 124A to 124C remain a part of the history of the Constitution’s text but have no operative effect after the judgment. The same arrangement for high courts under Article 217 was also affected, since the NJAC was intended to apply to both the Supreme Court and high courts.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Current affairs link Often in the news
• Basic structure link Independence of judiciary
• Amendment list 99th Amendment is asked

What Came Next?

The next category covers Judicial Review, beginning with its meaning and scope.

Key People and Terms

• NJAC National Judicial Appointments Commission
• 99th Amendment Created the NJAC
• Article 124A Established the NJAC
• Independence of judiciary Basic structure element
• Fourth Judges case NJAC case

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions on this topic usually ask about the balance between the judiciary and the executive. Use these points to add depth.

• Basic structure test Applied to the 99th Amendment
• Executive role Law Minister in the Commission
• Judicial independence Held decisive
• Reform pressure Court invited improvements