Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India & S.P. Gupta (1993)

Case Summary: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India & S.P. Gupta (1993)

(1993) 10 SC CK 0045

In The Supreme Court of India

Case No: Writ Petitions No. 1303 of 1987

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another (Appellant)

Union of India & S.P. Gupta (Respondent)

Date of Decision: 06-10-1993

Bench: Full Bench

Hon'ble Judges: Yogeshwar Dayal, S. Ratnavel Pandian, S.P. Bharucha, M.M. Punchhi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand, A.M. Ahmadi

Advocates: Malin K. Banerjee, Attorney General, Kapil Sibal, F.S. Nariman, Ram Jethmalani, P.N. Lekhi

Final Decision: Disposed Of

Citations:

AIR 1994 SC 268; (1993) 5 JT 497; (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1993) 2 SCR 659 Supp

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=279971

Facts of the Case:

A nine-judge bench was constituted to reconsider the majority view in S.P. Gupta’s case regarding the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments and the justiciability of fixation of judge strength in High Courts. The questions arose from the need to ensure the independence of the judiciary as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Law Points Raised:

1. Whether the Chief Justice of India has primacy in appointments and transfers of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
2. Whether fixation of judge strength under Article 216 is justiciable.
3. Scope and meaning of 'consultation' under Articles 124(2) and 217(1).

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 50, 103, 112(3), 113(1), 121, 124(2), 137, 145, 216, 217(1), 222, 222(1), 224, 231(2)(a), 233, 234, 356.
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 — Section 46, Article 74(1).
Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 — Article 22.
Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 101, 103, 200(2), 220(2).
Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 — Section 3.

Judgements Referred:

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India; Subhash Sharma v. Union of India; Various precedents on independence of judiciary and rule of law.

Obiter Dicta:

The independence of the judiciary is integral to the rule of law and the democratic structure. The term 'consultation' in judicial appointments implies a participatory process where the CJI’s opinion holds significant weight to ensure only persons of unimpeachable integrity are appointed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The opinion of the Chief Justice of India has primacy in appointments and transfers of judges. The process must be collaborative, and the executive cannot override the CJI’s view except for compelling reasons disclosed to him. Fixation of judge strength is subject to judicial review to a limited extent.

Final Ruling:

The majority in S.P. Gupta was overruled. The CJI’s opinion, formed collectively with senior judges, has primacy in judicial appointments and transfers. Fixation of judge strength is justiciable in cases of arbitrariness.

Relevant Paragraph Numbers:

Paras: 1-5, 8-14, 18-21, 25-30 (key discussions on primacy and judicial independence).

Summary:

This landmark judgment, known as the 'Second Judges Case', redefined the process of judicial appointments in India by granting primacy to the CJI’s opinion to safeguard judicial independence. It established the collegium system, ensuring that executive interference is minimized in selecting judges of higher courts.