Third Judges Case (In Re Presidential Reference AIR 1999 SC 1)
🧑⚖️ In Re: Presidential Reference (Third Judges Case)
Citation: AIR 1999 SC 1; (1998) 7 SCC 739
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Full Bench of 11 Judges
Date of Judgment: 6 October 1998
⚖️ Background
The case arose when the President of India referred a question to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution regarding the procedure for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The referral was about the interpretation of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which deal with the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
The key question was: What is the nature and extent of the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Union Government in judicial appointments?
This was the third such reference, following earlier cases known as the First Judges Case (1982) and the Second Judges Case (1993).
⚖️ Legal Issues
What is the constitutional scheme for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts?
How is the collegium system to be understood and applied?
What is the extent of the Executive's (Government’s) role vis-à-vis the Judiciary in appointments?
How are consensus and consultation among judges to be achieved?
🏛️ Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. Collegium System Affirmed and Expanded
The Court reiterated and expanded the collegium system, stating that appointments of judges are to be made by the President after consultation with the CJI and a collegium of senior judges.
The collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
This was a departure from the earlier practice where the Executive had a more dominant role.
2. Primacy of the Judiciary in Appointments
The judgment emphasized the primacy of the Judiciary in judicial appointments.
The Executive’s role is limited to receiving the recommendations and giving assent, and cannot reject recommendations arbitrarily.
The Government must consult the collegium but cannot supersede or ignore it.
3. Consultation vs Concurrence
The Court clarified that the word "consultation" in the Constitution means concurrence in this context.
Thus, the CJI’s and collegium’s opinion is decisive, not just advisory.
4. Objective Criteria and Transparency
While recognizing the collegium’s primacy, the Court recommended objective criteria and transparency in appointments.
Recommendations should be made with full disclosure of reasons to ensure accountability.
5. Judicial Independence
The case reinforced the importance of judicial independence, stating that appointment processes must protect the judiciary from political influence.
🧩 Ratio Decidendi
The appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges is primarily a judicial function.
The Chief Justice of India, along with a collegium of senior judges, has the dominant role in recommending appointments.
The Executive’s role is limited to formal approval and cannot veto or arbitrarily reject recommendations.
This ensures separation of powers and protects judicial independence.
⚖️ Significance
This case firmly established the collegium system of judicial appointments in India.
It limited the Executive’s role, ensuring the Judiciary controls its own composition.
The judgment aimed to maintain the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary.
It has been a cornerstone in debates about judicial appointments and reforms.
However, the collegium system has also faced criticism for lack of transparency and accountability.
🔍 Related Cases
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case) (1982) 2 SCC 365 – Held that consultation with the CJI is not binding.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case) (1993) 4 SCC 441 – Held that consultation means concurrence and gave primacy to the CJI.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC Case) (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and reaffirmed the collegium system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments