DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY VISKHAPATNAM,

A.P, INDIA.

PROJECT TITLE

Article 124

SUBJECT

Constitutional law – II

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Mr. Nageshwar Rao

Name of the candidate:

Roll Number:

Semester: 4

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) Acknomledgement............................................................................................................3

2) Abstract..............................................................................................................................4

3) Introduction........................................................................................................................5

4) Article 124………………………………………………………………………………....5

5) Historical Background……………………………………………………………………..6

6) Jurisdiction of the Supreme court…………………………………………………..……8

7) Constitution of court …………………………………………………………………...10

8) Composition……………………………………………………………………………11

9) Judicial Independence………………………………………………………………….12

10) Landmark Judgments………………………………………………………………...14

11) Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...19

12) Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..20

2
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to our beloved professor Mr. Nageshwar Rao

sir for giving me this wonderful opportunity to do a project on the topic of ‘Article 124’. It
helped me to know new many things and gain knowledge. I have put all my efforts to collect
the information and to complete this project.

I would extend my thanks to history sir for her support, guidance and encouragement
throughout the project. I would also like to thank my friends and family members for their
support throughout the project.

I would also like to thank my university ‘Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University’
for providing me with all the required materials for the completion of my project.

This is to certify that P. Swetha studying in semester 4, 2017123 has completed this project
all by myself with the guidance of the constitutional law faculty Mr. Nageshwara Rao sir with
the help of DSNLU library.

Signature of the

3
 Abstract

The Constitution of India enshrines the concept of separation of powers (i.e. The Judiciary,
the Executive and the Legislature should have separate functions and roles to play and no
organ should take over the other organ’s role even to a limited extent) The NJAC is
comprised of the members of the Executive and Legislature apart from the members of the
Judiciary. This is equivalent to the other organs encroaching the function of the Judiciary.
The main reason for such a stand is because the appointments to the higher Judiciary in the
Indira Gandhi Period was solely based on the whim and caprice of the Executive. The Chief
Justice of India’s recommendation for appointment meant nothing and the courts were packed
with Judges who would do as the Government pleases. This is quite evident from the
seniority rule being abrogated after the Kesavanandha Bharathi case judgment. The CJI
retired on the day of the judgement and A.N. Ray was appointed superseding three other
senior judges. The appointments to the Judiciary was very arbitrary and the collegium system
introduced cured to a certain extent the arbitrariness or the Executive control which was
exercised. Probably the Judges fear to have the NJAC because of the past. The Executive –
Judicial conflict in the past where Judiciary struggled to regain its vitality by asserting its
independence will prevent it from supporting any system which has a remote likelihood of
being subjected to the other organs’ control.

India has one of the oldest legal systems in the world. Its law and jurisprudence stretches
back into the centuries, forming a living tradition which has grown and evolved with the lives
of its diverse people. India’s commitment to law is created in the Constitution which
constituted India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, containing a federal system with
Parliamentary form of Government in the Union and the States, an independent judiciary,
guaranteed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy containing objectives
which though not enforceable in law are fundamental to the governance of the nation.

4
Introduction:

The excellent court of India became inaugurated on January 28, 1950. It succeeded the
Federal court of India and installed underneath the government of India Act, 1935. Articles
from 124 to 147 in part V of the charter deal with the organization, independence,
jurisdiction, powers procedures of the excellent court docket. At gift superb court docket has
31 judges such as the chief Justice of India.

The supreme court of India turned into inaugurated on January 28, 1950. It succeeded the
Federal court docket of India and mounted under the government of India Act, 1935. Articles
from 124 to 147 in element V of the constitution deal with the organisation, independence,
jurisdiction, powers processes of the ultimate court docket. At gift best courtroom has 31
judges inclusive of the chief Justice of India.

The supreme court of India is the highest judicial court and the final court of appeal under the
constitution of India, the highest constitutional court, with the power of judicial review.
Which include the chief Justice of India and a most of 31 judges, it has significant powers
within the shape of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

As the supreme court appeal, it takes up appeals mostly against verdicts of the high courts of
diverse states of the Union and other courts and tribunals. It safeguards fundamental rights of
citizens and settles disputes between various authorities of government in addition to the
central government vs state governments or state governments versus some other nation
government in the country. As an advisory court, it hears subjects which can also mainly be
cited it below the constitution with the President of India. It also may additionally take
cognisance of matters on its personal (or suo moto), without everybody drawing its attention
to them. The regulation declared via the supreme court turns into binding on all courts within
India and also by way of the union and state governments. Per Article 142 of the charter, it is
the obligation of the president to implement the decrees of the supreme court.

Article 124. Establishment and constitution of supreme court –

(1) There shall be a perfect court docket of India inclusive of a first-rate Justice of India and,
till Parliament via law prescribes a larger wide variety, of now not extra than seven _88other
Judges.

(2) every judge of the superb court docket shall be appointed via the President through
warrant below his hand and seal after session with such of the Judges of the excellent court

5
docket and of the high Courts within the States because the President may additionally deem
essential for the reason and shall keep workplace until he attains the age of sixty-five years:

supplied that within the case of appointment of a decide apart from the chief Justice, the chief
Justice of India shall always be consulted:

provided similarly that-

a. a decide may additionally, by means of writing beneath his hand addressed to the
President, surrender his office;

b. a decide can be eliminated from his office inside the way supplied in clause (4).

 99TH Amendment

Historical Background:

In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act 1861 turned into enacted to create excessive courts for
numerous provinces and abolished superb courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also
the sadr adalats in presidency cities which had acted as the best courts of their respective
areas. These new high courts had the distinction of being the very best courts for all cases
until the advent of the Federal courtroom of India beneath the authorities of India Act 1935.
The Federal courtroom had jurisdiction to clear up disputes among provinces and federal
states and hear appeals towards decisions of the excessive courts. The first CJI of India
became H. J. Kania.

The best court docket of India came into being on 28 January, 1950. It changed both the
Federal court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which have been then
on the apex of the Indian court device. The primary court cases and inauguration, however,
befell on 28 January, 1950 at 9:45 am, when the judges took their seats. Which is as a result
appeared as the legitimate date of establishment.

The supreme court to start with had its seat at the Chamber of Princes within the parliament
building wherein the previous Federal court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first chief
Justice of India turned into H. J. Kania. In 1958, the supreme court moved to its present
premises. Firstly, the constitution of India envisaged a supreme court with a main justice and
7 judges; leaving it to the parliament to growth this number. In early life, the supreme court
met from 10 to twelve inside the morning and then 2 to 4 in the afternoon for 28 days in a
month.

6
Jurisdiction of the Supreme court:

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original
jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more
States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any
question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been
conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High
Court to another State High Court or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court.
The Supreme Court, if satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same
questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or more
High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, may
withdraw a case or cases pending before the High Court or High Courts and dispose of all
such cases itself. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, International Commercial
Arbitration can also be initiated in the Supreme Court.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the
High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of
any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases,
involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals
also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that
the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the
opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In
criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to
imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial
before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial
convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period
of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to

7
entertain and hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court.
The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals
in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136
of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.
The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be
referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. There are
provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution,
Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 7(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35-H of the
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Appeals
also lie to the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Monopolies
and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Enlargement of Criminal
Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act,
1992, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections
Act, 1952 are also filed directly in the Supreme Court.
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with
power to punish for contempt of Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, Part-I of the Rules to
Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, the Court may take action
(a) Suo motu, or (b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or (c) on a
petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in
writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its judgment or
order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the
grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal
proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Judicial Independence

8
The constitution seeks to make certain the independence of excellent courtroom judges in
numerous approaches. Consistent with Article 50 of directive principles of nation coverage,
the country shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the government. Independence of
the judiciary, the supremacy of the charter and rule of regulation are the features of the
fundamental shape of the constitution. referred courtroom and high courts are empowered to
frame suo moto instances without receiving the formal petitions/proceedings on any
suspected injustice together with actions/acts indulging in contempt of court docket and
contempt of the constitution by way of the executive, legislators, residents, and so on. It’s
miles considered as one of the maximum impartial courtroom inside the whole South East
Asia. The main motive of excellent courtroom is to determine constitutional issues. It’s miles
the responsibility of the judiciary to border suo moto cases or to probe the instances/petitions
on the earliest towards the govt or legislature whilst legal guidelines are applied violating the
fundamental foundation and fundamental structure of the charter because the Article 38 (1) of
directive concepts guarantees that the state/judiciary shall try to sell the welfare of the human
beings via securing a social order wherein social, monetary and political justice is
animated/informed in all establishments of lifestyles.

B. R. Ambedkar clarified as given under within the Constituent assembly debates on Article
38 (1) high lighting its inevitable implementation.

Engagement of Supreme Court judges after retirement

Chapter IV of the Indian Constitution deals with Union Judiciary. Article 124 provides for
the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court. Art. 124(7) provides:

“No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any
court or before any authority within the territory of India.”

The First Law Commission in its Fourteenth Report considered the question of the Supreme
Court Judges taking up employment under the State or the Union after retirement. The
Commission was of the view that it was necessary to safeguard the independence of the
Supreme Court Judges by enacting a law barring further employment except as ad hoc Judges
of the Supreme Court under Art. 128. M.C. Setalvad, the Chairman of the First Law
Commission wrote in his autobiography:

9
“The Commission had, after careful consideration expressed the unanimous view that the
practice of Judges looking forward to or accepting employment under the Government after
retirement was undesirable as it could affect the independence of the Judiciary. We therefore
recommended that a constitutional bar should be imposed on Judges accepting office under
the Union or State Governments similar to the bar in the case of the Auditor and Comptroller-
General and members of Public Service Commissions.”

Appointments and the collegium

As according to the constitution, as held by using the court docket within the 3 Judges cases –
(1982, 1993, 1998), a choose is appointed to the splendid courtroom by means of the
president on the recommendation of the collegium — a closed group of the chief Justice of
India, the 4 maximum senior judges of the court and the senior-most decide hailing from the
high court docket of a prospective appointee. This has ended in a Memorandum of system
being observed, for the appointments.

Judges was appointed with the aid of the president on the recommendation of the union
cupboard. After 1993 (the second Judges’ Case), no minister, or even the executive
collectively, can suggest any names to the president, who in the end makes a decision on
appointing them from a list of names encouraged handiest by the collegium of the judiciary.
Concurrently, as held in that judgment, the executive become given the power to reject a
recommended call. However, in step with some,[who?] the executive has no longer been
diligent in using this electricity to reject the names of bad candidates endorsed via the
judiciary.

The collegium gadget has come underneath a truthful quantity of complaint. In 2015, the
parliament surpassed a regulation to update the collegium with a country wide Judicial
Appointments fee (NJAC). This became struck down as unconstitutional by using the best
court docket, within the Fourth Judges’ Case, as the new machine would undermine the
independence of the judiciary. Placing the old device of the collegium again, the courtroom
invited recommendations, even from the majority, on a way to improve the collegium device,
widely along the strains of – putting in an eligibility criteria for appointments, a permanent
secretariat to assist the collegium sift via cloth on potential applicants, infusing greater
transparency into the choice procedure, complaint redressal and some other suggestion now
not in these 4 classes, like switch of judges. This resulted inside the courtroom asking the

10
government and the collegium to finalize the memorandum of technique incorporating the
above.

As soon as, in 2009, the advice for the appointment of a judge of a high court made by way of
the collegium of that courtroom, had emerge as challenged in the referred court. The court
docket held that who should end up a choose changed into a count of truth, and any character
had a right to impeach it. However, who have to come to be a judge turned into a matter of
opinion and couldn’t be wondered. So long as an powerful consultation passed off inside a
collegium in arriving at that opinion, the content material or material placed earlier than it to
shape the opinion couldn’t be referred to as for scrutiny in court.

Landmark judgment

Land reform

After some of the courts overturned state legal guidelines for redistributing land from
zamindar (landlord) estates on the ground that the legal guidelines violated the zamindars’
fundamental rights, the parliament handed the first modification to the constitution in 1951,
accompanied via the 4th modification in 1955, to uphold its authority to redistribute land. The
ideally suited courtroom countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v.
kingdom of Punjab1 that the parliament did not have the energy to abrogate fundamental
rights, such as the provisions on private belongings. The 25 th modification to the charter in
1971 curtailed the right of a citizen to belongings as a essential proper and gave authority to
the government to infringe private assets, which led to a furore among the zamindars.

Rule of law

Ultimate court has not taken up the trail of many pending instances, on the grounds that April
2014 (more than 3 years), difficult the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014 which become enacted by means of the parliament without following the stipulated
technique within the charter and is said negative to the basic basis of the charter on which the
simple shape of the constitution is resting. The basic foundation of the charter is the dignity
and the liberty of its citizens that’s of ideal significance and can’t be destroyed through any
legislation of the parliament. While the honest trial to examine the validity of the 90-9 th
constitutional modification dated 31 December 2014, to shape countrywide Judicial
Appointments commission for the cause of appointing the judges of the ideally suited court

1
25th octuber 2014, retrieved 9th June 2014

11
docket and high courts, become performed on utmost priority and best courtroom added its
judgement on sixteen October 2015 (within a year) quashing the constitutional amendment as
unconstitutional and extremely virus mentioning the stated amendment is interfering with the
independence of the judiciary. Disposal of the numerous petitions filed towards Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is likewise similarly important as it has alienated the
primary rights of a substantial phase of Indian residents and additionally towards federal
individual of the charter which is part of the basic structure of the charter. Best court docket
is also losing its precious time with the aid of now not taking over the case in toto but
conducted a piecemeal trail by way of handing over its judgement to dispose the petitions
related with apportionment of property between the newly shaped states Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh. Best court is also undertaking piecemeal path of the petitions filed with the
aid of the states concerning water sharing of rivers and bifurcation of the common high court
docket with out thinking about the earlier pending petitions difficult the validity of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 that’s the basic purpose of these kinds of disputes.
Under assessments and balances as supplied inside the charter, it’s miles the responsibility of
the judiciary/superb court docket to set up the guideline of regulation at the earliest by way of
rectifying any misuse of the constitution via the parliament and the executive with out
colluding with them and to put off perceptions of human beings that rule of regulation is side
lined and a section of its residents are subjected to discrimination.

The Constitution of India under Article 124 and Article 217 prescribes the procedure for the
appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Court respectively. The articles state that
the judges would be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice and
other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as the president of india may deem
necessary.

The Collegium system for appointment of Judges emerged out of the three rulings of the
Supreme Court which are collectively referred to as the Three Judges case.

In the first judge case, S. P. Gupta vs Union of India2, the Supreme Court had held that the
word “consultation” in Article 124 and in Article 217  does not mean “concurrence” and the
ultimate power would be vested with president.

In Supreme court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India 3 is based totally

at the independence of the judiciary because the a part of primary structure of the
2
AIR 1982 SC 149
3
AIR 1994 SC 868

12
constitution. This situation is famously referred to as ‘2d Judges Case”. To comfy the ‘Rule
of regulation’ that is vital for the renovation of the democratic device and the separation of
powers that’s followed in the constitution with the directive ideas of ‘Separation of judiciary
from the executive’.

In early 2015, the superb courtroom Advocates-on-file association and Senior Advocates
filed writ petitions before the perfect court docket tough the constitutionality of the ninety-9 th
amendment and the NJAC Act.24 The petitions alleged, inter alia, that the NJAC violated the
primary structure of the charter by compromising the judiciary’s independence.

The primary decide’s case (S.P.Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149) gave the primacy
to the executive in appointments to the higher judiciary, maintaining that the recommendation
of the CJI’s advice on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent
reasons.” The consequences were not accurate enough to signify that we should have an govt
dominant gadget of appointments

The court docket has struck down The charter (ninety-9th modification) Act, 2014 and The
countrywide Judicial Appointments fee Act, 2014, affirming them to be unconstitutional and
void with a majority of 4:1. The court has additionally rejected the respondent’s plea for
connection with a larger bench for the reconsideration of the second and 0.33 choose’s
instances [(1993) four SCC 441, and (1998) 7 SCC 739, respectively]. The collegium
machine for appointment and transfer of judges has been restored.

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. nation of Kerala is possibly the most famous
constitutional choice by the supreme court of India. While ruling that there is no implied
predicament at the powers of Parliament to amend the constitution, it held that no
modification can do violence to its primary structure (the “fundamental shape Doctrine”).
Similarly, it established the ideal court’s proper of overview and, therefore, established its
supremacy on constitutional topics.

Following these reversals before the supreme court, the Indian authorities passed numerous
Constitutional amendments to supersede the choices of the supreme court:

 The Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971 introduced clause (4) in Article 13,
protecting Article 368 from the action of Article 13.

13
  Clauses (1) and (3) were also added to Article 368, to both restrict the scope of Article
13, as well as to establish the distinction between the amending power of Parliament
and its legislative power.

 The Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971 modified Article 31 of the

Constitution, expanding the power of the Government to acquire private property.

 And with the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 1971, Parliament nullified the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Privy Purses case.

The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati ultimately upheld the Land Reform Acts and the
Amendment Acts that had been challenged. The only provision that was struck down was that
portion of the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, which denied the possibility of judicial
review. Aside from the limit imposed on the ability of Parliament to alter the basic structure,
the case was an overall success for the Government.

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANKALGHAND HIMATLAL SHETH4

(1)This appeal by certificate involves the question as to the constitutionality of a notification

issued by the President of India on May 27, 1976 which reads thus : “In exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India the President after
consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased transfer Shri Justice Sankalchand
Himatlal Sheth, Judge of the High Court of Gujarat as Judge of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.”
(2.) By a foot-note, Justice Sheth was “requested to take charge of his duties in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court within four weeks from the date of the notification. The notification was
issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs,
Department of Justice.
(3.) Mr. Sheth complied with the order of transfer and assumed charge of his office as a
Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court but before doing so, he filed a Writ Petition, 911 of
1976, in the Gujarat High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the notification on
the following grounds : (i) The order was passed without his consent: such consent must be
necessarily implied in Article 222(1) of the Constitution and therefore the transfer of a Judge
from one High Court to another High Court without his consent is unconstitutional; (ii) The
order was passed in breach of the assurance given on behalf of the Government of India by

4
1977 AIR 2328, 1978 SCR (1) 423
14
the then Law Minister Shri A.K. Sen who, while moving the Constitution (15 th Amendment)
Act, 1963 said in the Lok Sabha that “so far as High Court Judges were concerned, they
should not .be trans ferred excepting by consent”. Mr. Sheth having accepted judgeship of the
Gujarat High Court on April 23, 1%9 on the faith of the Law Minister’s assurance, the
Government of India was bound by that assurance on the doctrine of promissory
estoppel; (iii) The order of transfer mitigated against public interest. The power conferred by
Article 222(1) was conditioned by the existence and requirement of pub lic interest, and since
the impugned transfer was not shown to have been made in public interest, it was ultra vires;
and (iv) The order was passed without effective consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
‘Consultation’ in Article 222(1) means “effective consultation” and since the precondition of
Article 222(1) that no transfer can be made without such consultation was not fulfilled, the
order was bad and of no effect.
Three Benches case

The Supreme Court of India’s collegium system, which appoints judges to the nation’s
constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own
judgments which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases.

Over the course of the three cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence to
mean that no other branch of the state – including the legislature and the executive – would
have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium system,
which has been in use since the judgment in the Second Judges Case was issued in 1993.
There is no mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution of India or in
successive amendments. Although the creation of the collegium system was viewed as
controversial by legal scholars and jurists outside India, her citizens, and notably, Parliament
and the executive, have done little to replace it. The Third Judges Case of 1998  is not a case
but an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court of India responding to a question of law
regarding the collegium system, raised by then President of India K. R. Narayanan, in July
1998 under his constitutional powers.

Further, in January 2013, the court dismissed as without locus standi, a public interest
litigation filed by NGO Suraz India Trust that sought to challenge the collegium system of
appointment.

15
Conclusion:

India has one of the oldest legal systems in the world. Its law and jurisprudence stretches
back into the centuries, forming a living tradition which has grown and evolved with the lives
of its diverse people. India’s commitment to law is created in the Constitution which
constituted India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, containing a federal system with
Parliamentary form of Government in the Union and the States, an independent judiciary,
guaranteed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy containing objectives
which though not enforceable in law are fundamental to the governance of the nation.

The Indian Parliament is competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the Union List.
State Legislatures are competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List. While
both the Union and the States have power to legislate on matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List, only Parliament has power to make laws on matters not included in the State
List or the Concurrent List. In the event of repugnancy, laws made by Parliament shall
prevail over law made by State Legislatures, to the extent of the repugnancy. The State law
shall be void unless it has received the assent of the President, and in such case, shall prevail
in that State.

On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic,
the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes
in the Parliament building which also housed India’s Parliament, consisting of the Council of
States and the House of the People. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal
Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the
Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the Supreme Court acquired its own present
premises. The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice
and 7 puisne Judges – leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all
the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the
work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to cumulate, Parliament increased the
number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986 and 31 in

16
2008 (current strength). As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller
Benches of two and three – coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when
required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.

Bibliography

 M. P. Jain, Indian constitutional law, 7th edition, 2016, Lexis Nexis

 V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 11th edition, 2008, Eastern Book company
 Durga Das Basu, Introduction to Constitutional Law, 5th edition, 1998, Kamal Law
House
 Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitution Law of India, 55th edition, 2018, Central Law Agency.

17