CASE LAWS:
PV Narasimha Rao vs State 1998- The scope of protection of immunity
available to the members of parliament is quite wide and is not confined
only against judicial proceedings but is available to them against all
actions and criminal proceedings or anything said or any vote given by
them. The object of protection is to enable members to speak their mind
in Parliament freely and fearlessly.
Case 2: SP Gupta vs. UOI (1982) (1st judges’ case or judges transfer case)
The SC unanimously agreed with the meaning of the term
‘Consultation’ as explained by the majority in the case of UOI vs.
Sankalchand Seth. This means that the ultimate power to appoint
judges was vested in the executive. The decision of the government
could only be challenged on the grounds of malafides or based on a
relevant consideration. In effect decision in SP Gupta case gave
absolute primacy to the government in appointment of judges.
Case 3: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union
of India (1993): (2nd Judges Case or Transfer case)
A nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a 7:2 majority
overruled its earlier judgment in the SP Gupta case -and held that
in the matter of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court
and the High Courts, the Chief Justice of India should have
primacy.
Greatest of significance should be attached to the opinion of
chief justice which is formed after taking into account the views of
two senior most judges of Supreme Court
The selection should be made as a result of participative
consultative process. In such process executive should only act as a
check on the exercise of the power of Chief Justice of India. Only in
exceptional circumstances and for strong reasons the names
recommended by the Chief Justice of India me not be appointed.
The court held that the appointment of Chief Justice of India
should be made on the basis of seniority.
Case 4: Re presidential reference 1999 (3rd Judge case or Transfer case)
A nine-judge bench of Supreme Court held that consultation
process to be adopted by Chief Justice of India requires
consultation of plurality of judges
The sole individual opinion of chief justice does not constitutes
consultation
With regard to appointment of Supreme Court judge and
transfer of High Court judge the Chief Justice of India should
consult a collegium of 4 senior most judges of Supreme Court. The
collegium must include the successor Chief Justice of India.
If two judges give adverse opinion then chief justice should not
send opinion to the government.
In regard to the appointment of High Court judge the collegium
should consist of Chief Justice of India and two senior most judges.
Court made it clear that recommendation for appointment
without following the consultation process is not binding on the
government.
Case 5: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. UOI (2015)
SC Held that both, 99th constitutional amendment and as well as
NJAC act 2014 is unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the original
collegium system was initiated again.
124(A) (B) (C) declared void by SC on 16th October 2016 in the
case of Supreme Court advocates on record association vs. UOI
2016
