https://www.quora.

com/Can-you-explain-the-Collegium-system-adopted-in-India-for-Judicial-
appointments-And-why-is-there-so-much-fuss-about-it

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-collegium-controversy/836029/

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-collegium-controversy/836029/

The Rajya Sabha on Thursday passed a Constitution amendment Bill to create a Judicial Appointments
Commission (JAC) which will replace the collegium system of appointing judges to higher courts. The BJP walked
out in protest demanding that the Bill be referred to a standing committee so that all stakeholders could
participate in the process that would lead to changing the two decades-old system.

The Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013 envisages setting up of the JAC, to be decided by Parliament,
that will recommend appointment and transfer of Supreme Court and High Court judges. Currently, the
collegium consisting of five top judges of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India, decides the
appointment of judges to higher courts.

“Transparent system”

“Appointment of judges is the role of the executive and not the judiciary. By this amendment, we are not trying to
interfere with the judicial processes … We are trying to have a transparent system of appointment and participate
with the judiciary to have best judges for a better future,” Law Minister Kapil Sibal said taking part in the debate.
It was in 1993 that the judiciary “rewrote the Constitution” when it introduced the collegium system of appointing
judges to higher courts, disturbing the delicate balance between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, he
said.

Allaying the BJP’s fears that passing this Constitution Amendment Bill while sending the main Bill — the Judicial
Appointments Commission Bill, 2013, which defines the establishment of the proposed body — to the standing
committee for vetting would lead to “a constitutional hiatus,” the Minister said that by the time the standing
committee returned the Bill, the Centre would seek ratification of all States on the amendment which would take
six to eight months.

However, the BJP was not convinced and denounced the government’s “piecemeal” approach to the issue. Leader
of the Opposition Arun Jaitley said the government was unnecessarily hastening the passage of the Bill that was
of “extraordinary” importance.

“When we are changing a system, all stakeholders should be allowed to participate in the process. Sending a Bill
to the standing committee is part of the legislative process … why deny this privilege of procedure to stakeholders
who might come up with better suggestions that could help improve the Bill,” he said, and demanded that both
the Bills, after vetted by the standing committee, could be taken up in the winter session.

However, Deputy Chairman P.J. Kurien said the Bill could not be sent back to the Standing Committee until Mr.
Sibal withdrew it. He noted that the matter was discussed at the business advisory committee meeting in the
morning where the BJP did not ask for sending the Bill to the standing committee. When Mr. Sibal refused to
withdraw the Bill, the BJP walked out in protest. The Bill was then put to vote — 131 votes were cast in favour and
one against it.

The lone MP who opposed the Bill was Ram Jethmalani. He said: “Both Bills are evil ... it will disturb the basic
feature of the Constitution. The government was trying to demolish the collegium system and slowly creating a
new system that is against the basic nature of the Constitution. I hope people avoid digging grave of the
Constitution. The Bill is wholly unconstitutional … It is useless.”

Keywords: collegium system, Judicial Bill, Rajya Sabha proceedings, monsoon session, parliament session, Kapil

Sibal, Arun Jaitley

 
Facts History about Collegium system SC judges appointment procedure

Facts History about Collegium system SC judges appointment procedure 

In Depth Know Supreme Court Judge Appointment Procedure Government Plans to bring JAC and
take over Judiciary Apex Court

Judiciary is one of the three wings of the State. 

Though under the Constitution the polity is dual the judiciary is integrated which can interpret and
adjudicate upon both the Central and State laws.

The structure of the judiciary in the country is pyramidical in nature.

At the apex, is the Supreme Court.  Most of the States have a High Court of their own.  Some States
have a common High Court.

The appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and their removal are governed by Article 124 of the
Constitution of India.

Articles 125 to 129 provide incidental matters.

The appointment and removal of the Judges of the High Courts are governed by Article 217.

Articles 218 to 221 and 223 to 224A provide for certain matters incidental thereto.

Article 222 provides for transfer of Judges from one High Court to another.

So far as the subordinate judiciary is concerned, the constitutional provisions relating thereto are
contained in Articles 233 to 237.

These provisions are, of course, supplemented by the rules made by the respective Governors of the
States under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

 Independence of the Judiciary:

Having regard to the importance and significance attached to the function performed by the judiciary,
the Constitution has consciously provided for separation of judiciary from the executive.

This is the excellent feature of the Indian Judiciary, which has kept executive that is Politician away
from the Judiciary and have not given any power to Executive that is Politician.

Today Indian citizens have faith only in the Indian judiciary no one has trust in politicians.

Just because of fear no one says nothing, speaks nothing or even agrees or expresses anything.

Article 124 in the Constitution of India 1949

124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court

(1) 
There shall be a Supreme Court of India constituting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament
by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges

(2) 
Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and
seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the
States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the
age of sixty five years:

Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the chief Justice, the chief Justice of
India shall always be consulted:

(a) 
A Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;

(b) 
A Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4)

A practice had developed over the last several decades according to which the Chief Justice of India
initiated the proposal, very often in consultation with his senior colleagues and his recommendation
was considered by the President (in the sense explained hereinabove) and, if agreed to, the
appointment was made.  By and large, this was the position till 1981.

Collegium of judges:
 Year 1981 -82
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) -   Judgement in this case created problems for
judiciary and Executive became Powerful

  In a decision rendered by a seven-judge Constitution Bench in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (AIR
1982 SC 149), the majority held that ‘consultation’ does not mean ‘concurrence’ and ruled further that
the concept of primacy of the Chief Justice of India is not really to be found in the Constitution.

It was held that proposal for appointment to High Court can emanate from any of the four
constitutional functionaries mentioned in Article 217 – and not necessarily from the Chief Justice of
the High Court.

This decision had the effect of unsettling the balance till then obtaining between the executive and
judiciary in the matter of appointment.

The balance tilted in favor of the executive.

Not only the office of the Chief Justice of India got diminished in importance, the role of judiciary as a
whole in the matter of appointments became less and less.

After this judgment, certain appointments were made by the Executive over-ruling the advice of the
Chief Justice of India.

Naturally, this state of affairs developed its own backlash.

Year 1993 - The Independence of Indian Judiciary was restored 

 In 1993, a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association Vs. Union of India (1993 (4) SCC. 441) over-ruled the decision in S.P.Gupta.

The nine-Judge Bench (with majority of seven) not only overruled S.P. Gupta’s case but also devised a
specific procedure for appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court in the interest of “protecting the
integrity and guarding the independence of the judiciary.”  For the same reason, the primacy of the
Chief Justice of India was held to be essential.
It held that the recommendation in that behalf should be made by the Chief Justice of India in
consultation with his two senior-most colleagues and that such recommendation should normally be
given effect to by the executive.

Elaborate reasons were are recorded in support of the proposition that selection of judges must be in
the hands of the judiciary in this country and how the systems prevailing in other countries are alien
to our constitutional system.

One of the judges relied upon Article 50 of the Constitution, which speaks of separation of judiciary
and executive and excluded any executive say in the matter of appointment to safeguard the
“cherished concept of independence.”

It held at the same time that it was open to the executive to ask the Chief Justice of India and his two
colleagues to reconsider the matter, if they have any objection to the name recommended but if, on
such reconsideration, the Chief Justice of India and his two colleagues reiterated the
recommendation, the executive was bound to make the appointment.

In short, the power of appointment passed into the hands of judiciary and the role of the executive
became merely formal.

The 1993 decision was reaffirmed in 1998 [1998 (7) SCC 739] in a unanimous opinion rendered by a
nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference being made by the President under Article 143
of the Constitution.

All the basic conclusions of the majority in the 1993 decision were reaffirmed.  There was, however,
some variation.

It was held that the recommendation should be made by the Chief Justice of India and his four senior-
most colleagues (instead of the Chief Justice of India and his two senior-most colleagues) and further
that Judges of the Supreme Court hailing from the High Court to which the proposed name comes
from must also be consulted.

In fact, the Chief Justice of India and his four senior-most colleagues are now generally referred to as
the ‘Collegium’ for the purpose of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court.
Appointment of Judges to High Courts –

Procedure for appointment of Judges of High Courts:

The procedure for appointment of Judges of the High Courts is slightly different from the one
concerning the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court.

Clause (1) of Article 217 says that “every judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by
warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the
State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the
High Court and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting judge, as provided in Article
224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty-two years”. 

A reading of this clause shows that while the appointment is made by the President, it has to be made
after consultation with three authorities,
Namely,
The Chief Justice of India,
The Governor of the State
And the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(Of course, in the matter of appointment of Chief Justice, the consultation with the Chief Justice is not
required).

Just as the President is the constitutional head, so are the Governors.

However, according to the practice, which had developed over the last several decades and which was
in vogue till the aforementioned 1981 decision of the Supreme Court (S.P.Gupta), the Chief Justice of
the High Court used to make the recommendation which was considered by the Governor of the State
(Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister) who offered his comments for or against the
recommendation.

The matter then went to the Central Government.

At that stage, the opinion of the Chief Justice was sought and based upon such advice, the
appointment was either made or declined, as the case may be.
It may be noted that even clause (1) of Article 217 uses the expression ‘consultation’ and not
‘concurrence’.

The decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta on the meaning of ‘consultation’ applied equally to
this Article.  After the decision in S.P. Gupta, the executive made quite a few appointments to the High
Courts which gave rise to a good amount of dissatisfaction among the relevant sections including the
Bar leading to the nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in 1993
aforementioned.

The decision laid down that the recommendation for appointment to the High Court shall be made by
the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues.

The opinion of the Chief Justice of India was given primacy in the matter and was to prevail over that
of the Governor of the State or even that of the High Court, if inconsistent with his view.

The President was of course to make the formal appointment just as in the case of a Judge of the
Supreme Court.  This position was affirmed in the Third Judges case (1998 (7) SCC 139).

Why above all the laws were added in the Indian Constitution?

Why Constitution gave the importance to the Supreme Court of India?

The reason is very simple that time our politicians like Dr. Ambedkar, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and
K.M. Munshi, the great political leaders did not trust the executive they knew and understood the
Indian situation.

Today also Indian situation is same nothing has changed not a 1% change has happened in India
everything is same

The requirement of consultation with not only the Chief Justice of India but with certain other Judges
at the Supreme Court and High Court level in Article 124 is an added indication of the concern the
founding fathers had with the independence of the judiciary.

Evidently, they did not trust the Executive in India to make proper appointments and hence
‘entrenched’ the requirement of ‘consultation’ in the Constitution itself expressly.

 It is, therefore, perfectly consistent with the Constitution, for the Supreme Court to say, in its 1993
and 1998 decisions referred to hereinbefore, that the Chief Justice of India occupies a pre-eminent
position and that the “consultation” contemplated by the said Articles should be a real and full
consultation and further that since the Judges would be in a better position to judge the competence
and character of the prospective candidates, their opinion should prevail in the matter of
appointment.

Indeed, as pointed out hereinafter, this is also the policy adopted by the Constitution with respect to
the appointment of members of the subordinate judiciary.

They are selected by the High Court; only the formal orders of appointment are issued by the
Governor/ Government.

The above concept has given us Judges who gave excellent judgement in 2G scam, Coal Scam

Now to make the Judiciary a weak organ in Indian Democracy Government of India is
planning to change the process of appointment of Judges.

The law ministry has proposed that the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Commission
The proposed Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) will be presided over by the

1) 
Chief Justice of India

2) 
Two sitting Supreme Court Judges

3) 
One eminent jurists appointed by the President of India [politician controlled]

4) 
Second eminent jurists appointed by the President of India [politician controlled]

5) 
The Union Law Minister [politician controlled]

6) 
Secretary - Department of Law and Justice. [Politician controlled]

The cabinet note says the inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition on the JAC

In the above format you can see that majority is controlled by Politicians thus after one or two strict
judges all future judges may be appointed who will praise the Politicians.

Thus we will never get to see the judgement like 2G scam, Coal Scam etc.

Just like CBI Supreme Court of India and High Court Position will became they will become similar.

This Post is a combination of my two old post which I wrote in the past 

Reality views by sm –

Sunday, April 27, 2014

What is the collegium system?

It is a system under which appointments and transfers of judges are decided by a forum of the Chief Justice
of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It has no place in the Indian Constitution.

What does the Constitution actually prescribe?

Article 124 deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. It says the appointment should be made
by the President after consultation with such judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the
President may deem necessary. The CJI is to be consulted in all appointments, except his or her own.

Article 217 deals with the appointment of High Court judges. It says a judge should be appointed by the
President after consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the state. The Chief Justice of the High Court
concerned too should be consulted.

How and when did the other system evolve?

The collegium system has its genesis in a series of three judgments that is now clubbed together as the
"Three Judges Cases". The S P Gupta case (December 30, 1981) is called the "First Judges Case". It declared
that the "primacy" of the CJI's recommendation to the President can be refused for "cogent reasons". This
brought a paradigm shift in favour of the executive having primacy over the judiciary in judicial
appointments for the next 12 years.

How did the judiciary come to get primacy?

On October 6, 1993, came a nine-judge bench decision in the Supreme Court Advocates-on Record
Association vs Union of India case — the "Second Judges Case". This was what ushered in the collegium
system. The majority verdict written by Justice J S Verma said "justiciability" and "primacy" required that
the CJI be given the "primal" role in such appointments. It overturned the S P Gupta judgment, saying "the
role of the CJI is primal in nature because this being a topic within the judicial family, the executive cannot
have an equal say in the matter. Here the word 'consultation' would shrink in a mini form. Should the
executive have an equal role and be in divergence of many a proposal, germs of indiscipline would grow in
the judiciary."