Podcast

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. UOI (II Judges case)

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. UOI (II Judges case)

Citation:  AIR 1994 SC 268

Court: Supreme Court Of India

Facts of the case: In 1991, a 3 judge bench  comprising of  CJ, M. N. Venkatachalia, J. Ranganath Misra and M.M. Punchhi , in the case of  Subhash Sharma v. Union of India observed the appointment of judges is not an executive act . They opined that the S. P. Gupta case pought to be reconsidered by a larger bench.  Pursuant to the judgment, the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association( SCAORA) filed a PIL raising several issues regarding the appointment of judges as well as filling up of vacancies in Supreme Court and High Court. A nine judge bench was constituted to deal with the questions.

Issue:

  1. Whether the opinion of the Chief Justice holds primacy with regard to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Court.
  2. If the fixation of the strength of judges in the High Courts are justiciable

Judgment: In this case, the nine-judge Constitution Bench by a majority of 7 :2 overruled the decision in S P Gupta. In the S. P, Gupta case, the court had held that the Central government has primacy in matters of appointment and transfer of judges.  In this case, the ruling was reversed, and the court also devised a specific procedure and guidelines that ought to be followed while appointing the judges. It now held that “consultation” meant “concurrence”, and that the CJI’s view enjoys primacy. The rationale behind the verdict was based in the fact the CJI would be best equipped to know and assess the ‘worth’ of candidates. The judgment also specified that the opinion of the CJI would be made after consulting with a body of senior most colleagues. This system was labelled as “the collegium system “. The judgment also highlighted the necessity to make appointment decisions devoid of political influence. It was observed by the court that unless there is a cogent reason to justify the decision, the order of seniority must be maintained while making appointments to the Supreme Court. It added that although it was open to the executive to ask the collegium to reconsider the matter if it had an objection to the name recommended, If, on reconsideration, the collegium reiterated the recommendation, the executive was bound to make the appointment. The importance of divesting the executive of absolute discretion was emphasized because such control would affect the independence of judiciary adversely.

In fact, through this case, the court clearly stated that in the event of deadlock between the executive and judiciary, the opinion of the CJI would hold more weight and thereby established a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.