National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and 99th Amendment

NJAC 99th amendment refers to the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, which sought to replace the collegium system of judicial appointments with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, restoring the collegium system, and stands today as one of the most significant instances of judicial review of a constitutional amendment in India.

What the 99th Amendment Did

The Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 inserted Article 124A into the Constitution, establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission. It also amended Article 124, substituting the earlier procedure — under which Supreme Court judges were appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice — with a procedure requiring appointment on the recommendation of the NJAC. A parallel change was made to Article 217, so that High Court judges too would be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the NJAC, together with the Governor of the state concerned.

Composition of the NJAC

Under Article 124A, the National Judicial Appointments Commission was to consist of:

• The Chief Justice of India, as Chairperson, ex officio;
• Two other senior Judges of the Supreme Court, as Members, ex officio;
• The Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice, as Member, ex officio; and
• Two eminent persons, nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the single largest opposition party where there is no recognised Leader of Opposition).

Alongside Article 124A, the amendment scheme also introduced Article 124B, dealing with the functions of the Commission, and Article 124C, empowering Parliament to make law regulating the Commission's procedure for selecting persons for appointment.

Striking Down of the NJAC: The Fourth Judges Case

The Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, along with the accompanying National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was challenged before the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case, decided on 16 October 2015 — commonly referred to as the Fourth Judges case — the Supreme Court declared both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional and void. As a consequence, the earlier collegium system of judicial appointments, under which appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made through a body of senior judges rather than through the NJAC's mixed composition, was restored.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments

The NJAC episode is a leading example of the judiciary exercising judicial review over a constitutional amendment itself, rather than merely over ordinary legislation or executive action. Judicial review in India has been classified into three broad categories: review of constitutional amendments, review of laws made by Parliament and state legislatures (including subordinate legislation), and review of administrative action by Union and state authorities. The Supreme Court has exercised this power in several landmark cases over the decades — including the Golaknath case (1967), the Bank Nationalisation case (1970), the Privy Purses Abolition case (1970), the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the Minerva Mills case (1980) — and the 2015 NJAC ruling extended this line of cases to the specific question of how judges to the higher judiciary are appointed.

Before and After the 99th Amendment

UPSC Relevance

Prelims:

• Article 124A (NJAC composition), Article 124B (functions) and Article 124C (Parliament's rule-making power) inserted by the 99th Amendment.
• The 99th Amendment and NJAC Act, 2014 were declared unconstitutional in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case, decided 16 October 2015.
• The case is popularly known as the Fourth Judges case.

Mains:

• Discuss the composition and rationale of the National Judicial Appointments Commission and the grounds on which it was struck down (GS2, polity/judiciary).
• Examine the significance of the NJAC ruling as an instance of judicial review of a constitutional amendment.
• Evaluate the arguments for and against greater executive involvement in judicial appointments in India.

FAQ

Q1. What was the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)? The NJAC was a body created by the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, intended to replace the collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, comprising the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.

Q2. Why was the 99th Amendment struck down? In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (16 October 2015), the Supreme Court declared the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void, restoring the collegium system.

Q3. What is the Fourth Judges case? It is the popular name for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (2015), in which the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC and the 99th Amendment.

Q4. Which constitutional articles were inserted or amended by the 99th Amendment? The amendment inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C, and amended Articles 124 and 217 to substitute the appointment procedure for Supreme Court and High Court judges with recommendation by the NJAC.

Q5. What replaced the NJAC after it was struck down? The pre-existing collegium system — under which senior judges recommend appointments — was restored and continues to govern appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Quick Revision

• 99th Amendment (2014) inserted Article 124A, creating the NJAC; also inserted Articles 124B (functions) and 124C (Parliament's rule-making power).
• NJAC composition: CJI (Chairperson) + 2 senior SC judges + Union Law Minister + 2 eminent persons (nominated by PM–CJI–Leader of Opposition committee).
• Articles 124 (SC judges) and 217 (HC judges) were amended to substitute consultation-based appointment with NJAC recommendation.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case, 16 October 2015 (Fourth Judges case): 99th Amendment and NJAC Act declared unconstitutional.
• Collegium system restored after the 2015 ruling.
• Case is a landmark instance of judicial review of a constitutional amendment.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Articles 124, 124A, 124B, 124C, 217 — https://legislative.gov.in
• Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 — https://legislative.gov.in
• Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 16 October 2015

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.