Constitution of India
Article 124A: National Judicial Appointments Commission
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Clause (1) — Composition of the National Judicial Appointments Commission
WHAT IT SAYS: There shall be a Commission called NJAC consisting of: (a) Chief Justice of India — Chairperson, ex officio (b) Two senior-most SC Judges next to CJI — Members, ex officio (c) Union Minister of Law and Justice — Member, ex officio (d) Two eminent persons nominated by a committee of PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha — Members Proviso 1: One eminent person must be from SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women. Proviso 2: Eminent persons serve 3-year terms; not eligible for renomination. WHAT IT MEANS: Created a 6-member body replacing the Collegium system to recommend judicial appointments with executive and civil society participation. KEY DOCTRINE: Basic Structure Doctrine — SC held this clause violated judicial independence, a basic feature, because non-judicial members could outvote/veto the 3 judicial members.
Clause (2) — Validity of proceedings despite vacancies
WHAT IT SAYS: No act or proceeding of the NJAC shall be questioned or invalidated merely because of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Commission. WHAT IT MEANS: A savings clause ensuring NJAC decisions are not vitiated by procedural irregularities in its composition — a standard provision for statutory bodies. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of De Facto Officers / Savings Clause — protects acts done under colour of authority even if appointment is later found defective.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 (Judicial Appointments Commission / JAC) Original provision: JAC comprises 15 members including judges, lawyers, and lay members; selects judges on merit for courts below Supreme Court. What India borrowed: The concept of a mixed-membership commission with judicial, executive, and civil society members recommending judicial appointments. 2. South Africa — Constitution, 1996 (Judicial Service Commission / JSC, Section 178) Original provision: JSC comprises judges, lawyers, law professors, Cabinet members, and MPs to advise on judicial appointments. What India borrowed: Inclusion of eminent persons/lay members and diversity mandate (SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women representation proviso). INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. CJI as Chairperson — Retained judicial primacy in leadership, unlike UK where Lord Chancellor is not on JAC. 2. Veto power for any two members — India gave blocking power to any two NJAC members; this was ultimately the fatal flaw struck down by SC. 3. Diversity proviso for eminent persons — Mandated one person from marginalized groups (SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women), reflecting India's social justice commitments. 4. Three-year non-renewable term for eminent persons — Prevented entrenchment, unlike UK's JAC where members may serve longer. NOTE: Article 124A was NOT in the original 1950 Constitution. It was an entirely post-independence legislative innovation inserted in 2014. The original Article 124 drew from Section 200 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT APPLICABLE — ARTICLE 124A WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION. Article 124A was inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014. It was NOT debated in the Constituent Assembly (1946–1949). PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON 99TH AMENDMENT: DEBATED ON: 11–14 August 2014 (Lok Sabha: 13 August; Rajya Sabha: 14 August) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Ravi Shankar Prasad (Law Minister) — Argued NJAC ensures transparency, accountability, and broad-based participation in judicial appointments. 2. Opposition members — Near-unanimous support; the Bill was passed with only one dissenting vote in Lok Sabha. 3. Fali S. Nariman (before SC) — Later argued NJAC could have been 'read down' rather than struck down entirely. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. Passed by Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014. 2. Passed by Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. 3. Ratified by 16 out of 29 State Legislatures. 4. Received Presidential assent on 31 December 2014. 5. Came into force on 13 April 2015. 6. STRUCK DOWN by Supreme Court on 16 October 2015. RELATED CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATE ON ARTICLE 124 (ORIGINAL): Debated in CAD Volume VIII (May 1949). Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported executive appointment with judicial consultation to balance independence with accountability.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — [First Judges Case] Held 'consultation' under Art. 124 does not mean 'concurrence'; gave executive primacy in judicial appointments (later overruled). 2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — [Second Judges Case] Overruled First Judges Case; established Collegium system; CJI's opinion has primacy. 3. In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 — [Third Judges Case] Clarified Collegium composition (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges) and consultative process. 4. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — [Fourth Judges Case] By 4:1 majority, struck down 99th Amendment and NJAC Act as unconstitutional; held they violated basic structure (judicial independence). 5. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) — Directed government and judiciary to collaborate on reforms to improve Collegium's transparency. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Jasti Chelameswar in Fourth Judges Case (2015) — Upheld NJAC as constitutional; argued Collegium lacked transparency and NJAC could check 'unwholesome trade-offs' and 'incestuous accommodations' between branches. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Fali S. Nariman — Argued NJAC could have been saved by 'reading down' problematic clauses rather than wholesale invalidation. 2. Pratap Bhanu Mehta — Called the situation 'a plague on both houses'; criticized both Collegium opacity and NJAC's structural flaws. 3. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar (2022) — Described SC's NJAC strike-down as 'unprecedented encroachment' on parliamentary powers, violating separation of powers.