Home | Legal Advice | Case Law | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993)

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993)

Background:

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India case from 1993 is a landmark judgment in the Indian legal system concerning the independence of the judiciary. The primary contention revolved around the appointment and transfer of judges, specifically the powers of the President of India (acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers) vis-à-vis the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other senior judges.

Facts of the Case:

The case arose from concerns regarding the central executive’s powers to appoint and transfer high court and supreme court judges without significant input from the judiciary itself. The apprehension was that such powers could undermine the independence of the judiciary.

The Key Issues:

  1. The appointment of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
  2. The transfer of judges from one High Court to another.
  3. Whether the opinion of the CJI in such matters could have primacy, and if so, whether it required consultation with other judges.

The Court’s Decision:

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down several principles and guidelines:

  1. Collegium System: The court established the ‘Collegium System’ for the appointment and transfer of judges. This system consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  2. Primacy of the Judiciary: The court held that in the event of a conflict between the President (i.e., the central executive) and the CJI over appointments, the opinion of the CJI would have primacy. This was intended to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
  3. Consultation Process: The term ‘consultation’ would not diminish the primary role of the judiciary in this matter. The consultation with the CJI in the context of appointments and transfers is not a mere formality.
  4. Transfers of Judges: On the transfer of judges, the consent of the judge concerned is not mandatory, but their opinion should be taken into consideration.

Significance:

This case is a cornerstone in the preservation of the judiciary’s independence in India. By establishing the Collegium System and ensuring the primacy of the judiciary in appointments and transfers, the Supreme Court ensured a buffer against potential executive interference in the judiciary.

Criticisms:

The judgment, while monumental, is not without its critics. The Collegium System has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability. Over the years, many have called for reforms in the process, leading to the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2014. However, the NJAC was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, further emphasizing the primacy of the Collegium System.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India case is a testimony to the inherent checks and balances within India’s constitutional system. The judgment highlighted the importance of an independent judiciary, even if the methodology (the Collegium System) remains a topic of debate.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

High Court Lucknow

Kanoonirai has been advising in legal issues since October 2014. You can consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54