Constitution of India
Article 124C: Power of Parliament to make law
Part V — The Union, Chapter IV — The Union Judiciary
Article 124C (single, undivided article — no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament may, by law, regulate the procedure for appointment of CJI and other SC Judges, Chief Justices and other HC Judges, and empower the NJAC (Commission under Art. 124A) to lay down by regulations the procedure for discharge of its functions, manner of selection for appointment, and such other matters as it considers necessary. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Gave Parliament law-making power over judicial appointment procedures. 2. Authorized the NJAC to frame its own regulations on selection criteria and operational matters. 3. Shifted appointment procedure from constitutional text to ordinary legislative control. 4. Currently INOPERATIVE — struck down as unconstitutional in 2015. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Basic Structure Doctrine — Judicial independence is a basic feature; cannot be diluted even by constitutional amendment. 2. Doctrine of Excessive Delegation — Constituent power (judicial appointments) cannot be delegated to ordinary parliamentary legislation. 3. Separation of Powers — Legislative control over judicial appointments violates the independence of the judiciary.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 (Judicial Appointments Commission) Original provision: An independent JAC selects judges on merit, with lay members, judges, and lawyers represented. What India adapted: The NJAC similarly included judicial, executive, and eminent members, but gave Parliament regulatory power. 2. South Africa — Section 178, Constitution of 1996 (Judicial Service Commission) Original provision: A broad-based JSC recommends appointments with transparency, diversity, and public interviews. What India adapted: The NJAC borrowed the commission model with mixed membership including eminent persons. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Art. 124C gave Parliament (not the Commission itself) the power to legislate on procedures — unlike the UK JAC which has statutory independence. 2. The NJAC included the Union Law Minister as ex-officio member — stronger executive presence than UK or South Africa models. 3. Two 'eminent persons' could veto judicial recommendations — a unique Indian provision not found in comparable foreign models. ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Article 124C was not part of the original 1950 Constitution. It was inserted by the 99th Amendment (2014) to provide a statutory framework for the NJAC, a uniquely Indian attempt to replace the judicially-created Collegium system with a legislatively-regulated commission.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT APPLICABLE — Article 124C was NOT part of the original Constitution. DEBATED ON: Not debated in the Constituent Assembly (1946–1949). Article 124C was inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE CONTEXT: 1. The Constitution (121st Amendment) Bill, 2014 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 11 August 2014. 2. Passed by Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014. 3. Passed by Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. 4. Ratified by 16 of 29 State Legislatures. 5. Presidential assent by Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. 6. Came into force on 13 April 2015. 7. Struck down on 16 October 2015. RELATED ORIGINAL CAD CONTEXT (Art. 124): 1. On 24 May 1949, the original Art. 124 was debated in the Constituent Assembly (CAD Vol. VIII). 2. K.T. Shah proposed strict separation of judiciary from legislature to protect independence. 3. K.M. Munshi argued India adopted checks and balances, not watertight separation of powers. 4. The framers adopted executive appointment with judicial consultation — NOT a commission model.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) [First Judges Case] — Held 'consultation' ≠ 'concurrence'; executive has 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; held CJI's opinion has primacy; established the Collegium system. 3. In re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 [Third Judges Case] — Clarified Collegium must consist of CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges for SC appointments. 4. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) [Fourth Judges Case / NJAC Case] — By 4:1 majority, struck down Articles 124A, 124B, 124C and the NJAC Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and void; revived the Collegium system. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice J. Chelameswar in NJAC Case (2015) — Upheld the NJAC as valid; argued the Collegium system lacked transparency and accountability; held judicial primacy in appointments is NOT a basic feature of the Constitution. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Gautam Bhatia (Constitutional Law Blog) — Argued Art. 124C amounts to impermissible delegation of constituent power to ordinary legislation, violating separation of powers. 2. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar (2022) — Criticized the NJAC judgment as an unprecedented encroachment by the judiciary on Parliament's constitutional amendment power.