2015 (10) TMI 2687 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 as also, that of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 - whether primacy of judiciary and absence of Executive interference in appointment of judges is part of such basic structure? - Held that - Once the constitutional validity of Article 124A(1) is held to be unsustainable, the impugned constitutional amendment, as well as, the NJAC Act, would be rendered a nullity. The impugned Amendment and the Act are struck down as unconstitutional. Pre-existing scheme of appointment of judges stands revived. The matter be listed for consideration of the surviving issue of grievances as to working of pre-existing system.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Independence of the judiciary.
2. Separation between the judiciary and the executive.
3. Appointment and transfer of judges.
4. Role of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments.
5. Role of the executive in judicial appointments.
6. Constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
7. Interpretation of "consultation" in the context of judicial appointments.
8. Primacy of the judiciary in appointments.
9. Impact of the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act on the basic structure of the Constitution.
10. Transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Independence of the Judiciary:
The judgment emphasizes that the independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution. The independence of the judiciary is not limited to independence from executive pressure or influence but encompasses freedom from many other pressures and prejudices. This independence is manifested in the ability of a judge to make decisions without external or internal pressure, termed as "decisional independence," and the institution's ability to have "functional independence."

2. Separation between the Judiciary and the Executive:
Article 50 of the Constitution mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The judgment highlights the historical context and debates in the Constituent Assembly, which emphasized the need for this separation to ensure an independent judiciary. The judgment discusses instances where executive interference in judicial matters was criticized, reinforcing the need for a clear separation to maintain judicial independence.

3. Appointment and Transfer of Judges:
The judgment underscores that the appointment and transfer of judges are integral to the independence of the judiciary. Historically, the recommendation for judicial appointments has originated from the judiciary, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has played a pivotal role in this process. The judgment critiques the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act for altering this established process, thereby impacting judicial independence.

4. Role of the Chief Justice of India in Judicial Appointments:
The judgment stresses that the CJI's role in judicial appointments is crucial for maintaining judicial independence. The CJI's opinion, formed in consultation with other senior judges, has traditionally held significant weight in the appointment process. The judgment criticizes the NJAC for reducing the CJI to a mere voting member, thereby undermining the judiciary's role in appointments.

5. Role of the Executive in Judicial Appointments:
The judgment expresses concerns about the executive's involvement in judicial appointments. It highlights the potential for executive interference to compromise judicial independence. The inclusion of the Law Minister in the NJAC and the provision allowing two members to veto appointments are seen as mechanisms that could enable executive influence over judicial appointments.

6. Constitutional Validity of the NJAC:
The judgment declares the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act unconstitutional. It argues that these acts alter the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments. The judgment emphasizes that any changes to the appointment process must preserve the judiciary's independence and its role in upholding the rule of law.

7. Interpretation of "Consultation" in the Context of Judicial Appointments:
The judgment discusses the interpretation of "consultation" in Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution. It argues that "consultation" with the CJI should be understood as requiring significant weight to be given to the judiciary's opinion. The judgment critiques the NJAC for not adequately respecting this interpretation and for allowing non-judicial members to have a decisive say in appointments.

8. Primacy of the Judiciary in Appointments:
The judgment reaffirms the primacy of the judiciary in the appointment process as essential for maintaining judicial independence. It criticizes the NJAC for diluting this primacy by allowing the executive and non-judicial members to have an equal or overriding role in appointments.

9. Impact of the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act on the Basic Structure of the Constitution:
The judgment concludes that the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act alter the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining the judiciary's independence and its primacy in judicial appointments. It emphasizes that the basic structure doctrine limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, and any amendment that damages this structure is unconstitutional.

10. Transparency and Accountability in the Judicial Appointment Process:
While acknowledging the need for transparency and accountability, the judgment argues that these objectives should not be achieved at the cost of judicial independence. It critiques the NJAC for potentially compromising the judiciary's independence under the guise of promoting transparency and accountability.

The judgment ultimately declares the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act unconstitutional, reinstating the collegium system for judicial appointments and transfers. It calls for a "consequence hearing" to address potential improvements to the collegium system to enhance transparency and accountability while preserving judicial independence.