Justice Verma and the Evolution of Judicial Appointments (Three Judges Case)

Context:

Published on March 25, 2025, this article revisits the legacy of Justice J.S. Verma and the pivotal Three Judges Cases, amid renewed debate over the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Triggered by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks on judicial accountability and a cash controversy involving Justice Yashwant Varma, it underscores the ongoing tension between judicial independence and executive oversight in India’s appointment system as of March 26, 2025.

Key Information Points:

• Justice Verma’s Role: Justice J.S. Verma (1933–2013), former Chief Justice of India (1997–1998), shaped judicial independence through the Second Judges Case (1993), reinforcing the Collegium System.
• Three Judges Cases:
• • First Judges Case (1981): S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India ruled that “consultation” with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the President for judicial appointments was not binding, favoring executive primacy.
  • Second Judges Case (1993): Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India, led by Justice Verma, redefined “consultation” as “concurrence,” establishing the Collegium (CJI and two senior-most judges) with primacy in appointments.
  • Third Judges Case (1998): A Presidential reference expanded the Collegium to five members (CJI and four senior-most judges), solidifying judicial control over appointments.
• NJAC Introduction: The NJAC Act, 2014, via the 99th Constitutional Amendment, proposed a six-member commission (CJI, two senior judges, Law Minister, two eminent persons) to replace the Collegium, aiming for transparency and executive inclusion.
• NJAC Struck Down: In 2015, the Supreme Court (4:1) declared NJAC unconstitutional in the Fourth Judges Case, citing violation of judicial independence, a basic structure of the Constitution.
• Current Debate: Vice President Dhankhar’s March 2025 Rajya Sabha remarks linked a cash recovery from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence to NJAC’s potential for accountability, criticizing the Collegium’s opacity.
• Collegium Criticism: Lacks transparency, with no official norms or public records of its proceedings, fueling calls for reform.
• Impeachment Process: Judges can be removed by Parliament via a motion supported by a majority of total membership and two-thirds present and voting in each House, a rare and complex process.
• Relevance Today: The NJAC-Collegium debate reflects ongoing tensions between judicial autonomy and executive oversight, critical for understanding governance dynamics.

Key Terms:

• Collegium System: Mechanism where the judiciary appoints its judges, led by the CJI and senior judges.
• NJAC: National Judicial Appointments Commission, a proposed body for judicial appointments, struck down in 2015.
• Judicial Independence: Judiciary’s autonomy from executive and legislative interference, a constitutional cornerstone.
• Three Judges Cases: Landmark rulings (1981, 1993, 1998) shaping India’s judicial appointment process.
• Basic Structure: Core constitutional principles, including judicial independence, unamendable by Parliament.
• Impeachment: Parliamentary process to remove judges for proven misbehavior or incapacity.
• Justice J.S. Verma: Former CJI instrumental in establishing the Collegium’s primacy.

Link To The Original Article – https://indianexpress.com/article/upsc-current-affairs/upsc-essentials/knowledge-nugget-justice-verma-three-judges-cases-njac-9905349/