SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA
CASE NAME : SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA
AUTHOR : VARNIKA VERMA
AIR 1994 SC 268
1993 (5) SLR 337 (SC)
 SUPP 2 SCR 659
(1993) 4 SCC 441
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice Chelameswar, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
The Supreme Court Advocates and Record Association case is famously known as “second judges’ case”. The case is based on the independence of Judiciary as the part of basic structure of the Constitution of India.
To secure the ‘rule of law’ which is essential for the preservation of the democratic system, the broad scheme of separation of powers was adopted in the Constitution of India, together with the directive principle of state policy for the separation of judiciary from executive.
The case was decided on 6 October, 1993 and after the judgment on second judges case, the collegium system was adopted for the appointment of the judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
The bench mainly examined the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justifiability of fixation of Judge strength.
- The case was filed as a writ petition before the Apex Court. it brought into reconsideration the controversial judgment of the S.P. Gupta’s Case, although the nine-Judge Bench overruled the case.
- The case was mainly regarding the primacy of the opinion of Chief Justice of India in the appointments of Supreme Court and High Courts of India in the interest of “protecting the integrity and independency of the judiciary,
- It was argued before the Hon’ble Court that the interference of the executive in judiciary’s domain must be minimized and thus the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India should not be ignored.
- The bench delivered the judgment with a majority of 7:2 and also expanded the meaning of the word ‘consultation’ by equating it with ‘concurrence’.
- The contested convention in the case was the role of the judiciary in the appointment process.
Whether the establishment convention can be read in Article 124(2) and Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India to the effect that judiciary has primacy over the executive in the appointment procedure of the judges of Supreme Court and High Court of India?
On the question of primacy the court conclude that the role of the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointments to the Judges of the Supreme Court is unique, singular and primal, but participatory vis-a-vis the Executive on a level of togetherness and mutuality, and neither he nor the Executive can push through an appointment in derogation of the wishes of the other.