Source: Hindustan Times

Why in News?

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has stated that Supreme Court (SC) by virtue of its diversity is a people-centric court and not a polyvocal one while speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) felicitation function of the newly appointed SC Judges - Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice SVN Bhatti.

Background

• CJI stated in the ceremony that the SC collegium consists of judges where a Judge from Maharashtra along with a Judge from West Bengal decide a matter relating to state of Haryana hence this is not the SC of Maharashtra or Delhi rather it is the SC of India and our aim here is to reflect that this court reflects the diversity of India.
• One of the major duties of the SC collegium in appointing judges is to ensure diversity and make a “people-centric court”.
• People-centered Legal and Justice services refers to an empirical understanding of legal needs and legal capabilities of those who require or seek assistance.
• CJI further stated that “People will start trusting the judiciary only when they see a reflection of themselves in the people who dispense justice.”
• CJI also raised one of the main concerns faced by Judges appointed to SC during the initial months of their tenure i.e., the accommodation in Delhi, as newly appointed Judges often have to stay at State Government Sadans (guest houses) for months.

Collegium System

• Constitution of India, 1950 under Articles 124(2) and 217 deal with the appointment of judges to the SC and High Courts (HC), respectively.
• Collegium System is the system of appointment and transfer of judges that has evolved through judgments of the SC, and not by an Act of Parliament or by a provision of the Constitution.
• The cases that propounded the collegium system are as follows:
• First Judges Case - S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
  • The ruling by the SC held that the word ‘consultation’ in Article 124 does not mean concurrence. Hence, the President was not bound to make a decision based on the consultation of the SC.
• Second Judges Case - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another v. Union of India (1993)
  • SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
  • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.
• Third Judges Case - In re Special Reference 1 of 1998
  • SC on the President's reference (Article 143) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.
  • The SC also laid down strict guidelines for the appointment of Judges of the SC and HC.
• Fourth Judges Case - SC Advocates-on-Record-Association and another v. Union of India (2015)
  • The Constitution’s (99th Amendment) created the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC) in which Article 124A was added to the Constitution of India, 1950. The Act’s functions and Parliament’s power to make laws were outlined in Articles 124B and 124C.
  • In the present case, the SC held that Article 124A does not provide adequate representation to the judicial component of the NJAC hence it was held violative of the independence of the judiciary which forms the essential structure of the Constitution. The court invalidated the NJAC and restored the earlier system.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Appointments of Judges

Article 124(2) - Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court - (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal *(on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A) and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years.

Provided that —

(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).

Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.—(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal *(on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A), and 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, 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:

Provided that—

(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 by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court; (c) the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and—

(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.

Explanation —For the purposes of this clause—

(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;

(aa) in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law after he became an advocate;

(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.

(3) If any question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court, the question shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the decision of the President shall be final.

*Subs. by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, s. 2, for "after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose" (w.e.f. 13-4-2015). This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs. Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015.

Supreme Court Judges

• The strength of SC Judges at present is 34 including the CJI.
• A person who is a citizen of India can be a Judge of SC till he attains the age of 65 years and has to possess following qualifications according to Article 124:
  • Has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
  • Has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
  • Is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
• Removal of a Judge of SC can take place as per the provisions of Article 124(4) of COI in following manner:
  • Article 124(4) - A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.