1. What’s the Issue?
The Constitution of India says that the President appoints Supreme Court and High Court judges after "consulting" the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The problem? The word "consultation" was not clearly defined! 🚨
Does it mean the President must follow the CJI’s advice, or is it just a formality? 🤔
The Supreme Court had to interpret this in four major cases, called the Four Judges Cases.
2. The Four Judges Cases – How the Meaning of "Consultation" Changed
➡️ First Judges Case (1982)
- The Supreme Court said "consultation" ≠ "concurrence".
- This means the President can listen to the CJI’s advice but is NOT bound to follow it.
- Example: Imagine your friend gives you advice about what phone to buy. You can take it or ignore it—your choice!
➡️ Second Judges Case (1993) – Collegium System Introduced
- Supreme Court changed its view! Now, "consultation" means "concurrence", meaning the President MUST follow the CJI’s advice.
- But, the CJI can’t decide alone—he has to consult two senior-most judges before advising.
- Example: Imagine now, instead of just one friend’s advice, you must consider two more experienced friends’ opinions before buying the phone.
➡️ Third Judges Case (1998) – Expanding the Collegium
- Supreme Court expanded the collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges.
- If at least two of these judges disagree, the recommendation cannot be sent to the government.
- Example: Now, instead of two friends, you have four friends deciding on the best phone for you. If two disagree, you can’t finalize your decision!
3. Government’s Attempt to Change the System (NJAC – 2014)
- The government did not like that judges were appointing themselves (collegium system).
- So, in 2014, it passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment & NJAC Act to replace the collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
- NJAC included government members in the appointment process.
4. Fourth Judges Case (2015) – NJAC Struck Down 🚫
- Supreme Court said NJAC was unconstitutional ❌ because it weakened judicial independence.
- The collegium system was restored and is still in use today!
5. Summary of What Happened
| Case |
Year |
What Did the Supreme Court Say? |
| First Judges Case |
1982 |
"Consultation" ≠ "Concurrence", President not bound by CJI’s advice. |
| Second Judges Case |
1993 |
"Consultation" = "Concurrence", President must follow CJI’s advice (CJI + 2 senior judges). |
| Third Judges Case |
1998 |
Collegium expanded (CJI + 4 senior judges). If 2 judges disagree, recommendation fails. |
| NJAC Act |
2014 |
Government tried to replace collegium with NJAC. |
| Fourth Judges Case |
2015 |
NJAC struck down, collegium restored to protect judicial independence. |
6. Real-Life Example 📌
Think of the judicial appointment system like a cricket team selection:
- Initially, the Captain (President) could select players alone (First Judges Case).
- Then, the Captain had to listen to the Coach (CJI) and two selectors (Second Judges Case).
- Later, the Coach had to consult four senior selectors (Third Judges Case).
- The BCCI (Government) tried to introduce its own selection process (NJAC), but the Supreme Court dismissed it (Fourth Judges Case).
7. Why is This Important?
- The collegium system helps maintain judicial independence and prevents government interference.
- But critics argue it lacks transparency and is like a "judges appointing judges" club.
- This debate continues even today!
