🐾
NJAC Controversy
The 99th Amendment, The Fourth Judges Case & Separation of Powers
PART I — THE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT
THE 99TH AMENDMENT ACT (2014)
Replacing the Collegium
- Parliament unanimously passed the **99th Constitutional Amendment Act** and the NJAC Act, 2014, to replace the opaque Collegium system.
- It inserted Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C into the Constitution.
- The goal was to create a more transparent, broad-based appointment mechanism that included both judicial and executive voices.
THE COMMISSION
Composition & The Veto
- **NJAC Composition (6 Members):** CJI (Chairperson), 2 senior-most SC judges, the Union Law Minister, and 2 "eminent persons."
- **The Crux of Friction:** The Act stipulated that if **any two members** of the NJAC disagreed, the recommendation would be dropped.
- This effectively gave a veto power to the political/executive appointees over the collective wisdom of the judicial members.
PART II — THE JUDICIAL COUNTER-STRIKE
THE FOURTH JUDGES CASE (2015)
Striking Down NJAC
X
- The Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) challenged the amendment.
- In a historic **4:1 majority judgment**, a Constitution Bench struck down both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act entirely.
- The Court declared them **unconstitutional and void**, immediately reviving the old Collegium system.
THE RATIONALE
Separation of Powers
- The SC ruled that **Judicial Primacy** in appointments is an integral component of the **Independence of the Judiciary**, which is a *Basic Feature* of the Constitution.
- The presence of the Law Minister and the veto power of "eminent persons" compromised this primacy, allowing the Executive to heavily influence appointments.
- This structural breach of the **Separation of Powers** meant the amendment destroyed the Basic Structure and could not stand.