Comment in 150 words: 99th Amendment of the Indian Constitution. (2015, 10 Marks)
The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, with the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, sought to replace the collegium, a system in which senior judges select and transfer judges, with a mixed commission. Passed almost unanimously in August 2014 and ratified by over half the states, it took effect on 13 April 2015 and fell six months later. It pitted judicial independence against accountability.
Provisions
- Article 124A created a six-member NJAC: the Chief Justice of India (chair), the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons chosen by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition, one from the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities or women.
- Article 124B gave it recommendations and transfers for the higher judiciary; Article 124C let Parliament regulate its procedure.
- Under the Act, any two members could veto a candidate.
The Fourth Judges Case
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015), a five-judge bench led by Jagdish Singh Khehar struck down both, 4:1.
- Majority: judicial primacy in appointments is part of judicial independence, a basic feature. The Law Minister’s seat risked a culture of reciprocity, and the two-member veto let non-judges override the three judges.
- Jasti Chelameswar, dissenting: primacy has no textual basis, since Article 124 required only consultation; the collegium was a judicial creation of the Second Judges Case (1993), refined by the Third (1998), and a mixed body could check unwholesome trade-offs within the collegium.
The Collegium Since
- The Court conceded the need for reform and in late 2015 sought a revised Memorandum of Procedure; a decade on, it is still not finalised.
- Transparency has advanced piecemeal: collegium resolutions are published since 2017, and on 5 May 2025 the Supreme Court put judges’ asset declarations and appointment details online.
- Accountability remains the weak point. After cash was found at Justice Yashwant Varma‘s residence in March 2025, a Judges (Inquiry) Act committee reported the charges proved in August 2026; Parliament has yet to vote. Calls to revive the NJAC have returned.
Assessment
The majority protected independence from the executive but left the judiciary unaccountable in selecting itself, a model almost no other democracy follows. Critics see four judges overruling a near-unanimous Parliament on their own power; defenders reply that basic-structure review exists precisely for popular amendments.
Conclusion
The 99th Amendment failed on design, above all the veto and the Law Minister’s seat, not on principle. The durable lesson is that independence and accountability must be secured together: a transparent, criteria-based collegium or a judge-majority commission without an executive veto.