CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA (CJI)
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the head of the Indian judiciary and the Supreme Court — the highest judicial authority in the country. The process of appointing the CJI is guided by the Constitution of India, conventions developed over time, and judicial precedents that aim to uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
- The constitutional foundation for the appointment lies in Article 124(2) of the Constitution, which states that every judge of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, is appointed by the President of India through a warrant under his hand and seal, after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary.
- However, the Constitution does not lay down any explicit procedure or criteria for appointing the Chief Justice of India. Over the years, a convention has evolved that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the next CJI. This practice ensures continuity, seniority, and respect for the institutional hierarchy within the judiciary.
- When the incumbent Chief Justice approaches retirement, the Union Minister of Law and Justice initiates the process by seeking the recommendation of the outgoing Chief Justice.
- The sitting CJI, following established practice, formally recommends the name of the senior-most puisne judge (the judge next in rank) of the Supreme Court for appointment as the next Chief Justice of India. This recommendation is then forwarded to the Prime Minister, who advises the President to make the appointment.
- The President of India, acting on this advice, formally appoints the recommended judge as the new Chief Justice of India. The incoming CJI assumes office after the outgoing Chief Justice retires, ensuring a smooth and orderly transition.
- While the process appears straightforward, it has evolved through experience and past controversies. In the early 1970s, there were instances when the convention of appointing the senior-most judge was overlooked, leading to allegations of executive interference.
- These incidents prompted strong criticism and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining judicial independence through adherence to the principle of seniority.
- Thus, the appointment of the Chief Justice of India represents a delicate balance between constitutional provisions, executive authority, and judicial convention. It ensures that the highest judicial office in the country is filled in a manner that maintains both institutional stability and public trust in the independence of the judiciary
|
The appointment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is provided for under Article 124(2) of the Constitution of India. This article states: "Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose" Although Article 124(2) does not explicitly mention the Chief Justice of India by name, the CJI is appointed under the same constitutional provision as other judges of the Supreme Court. Over time, a well-established convention has evolved that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the Chief Justice of India |
The qualifications required to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) are the same as those prescribed for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court, as laid down in Article 124(3) of the Constitution of India.
The Constitution does not list any special or separate qualifications for the CJI — the person who becomes Chief Justice must first be eligible to be a Supreme Court Judge.
According to Article 124(3), a person is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court (and thus as the CJI) if they:
-
Are a citizen of India, and
-
Fulfil any one of the following three conditions:
-
Have been a Judge of a High Court (or of two or more such Courts in succession) for at least five years; or
-
Have been an Advocate of a High Court (or of two or more such Courts in succession) for at least ten years; or
-
Are, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
-
- The Collegium System is a unique mechanism developed by the Supreme Court of India to ensure the independence of the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary — that is, the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
- It is not mentioned in the Constitution; rather, it has evolved through judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 124 and 217, which deal with the appointment of judges
- Despite its intent, the Collegium System faces criticism for being opaque and unaccountable, as it operates through internal consultations without a formal selection process or transparency in decision-making.
- Critics argue that it lacks institutional checks and public scrutiny, while supporters maintain that it prevents political interference in judicial appointments
- The Collegium System is a judge-made innovation that gives the judiciary the decisive role in selecting its own members. Though not part of the original constitutional framework, it has become a cornerstone of India’s judicial independence — even as debates continue over the need for greater transparency and reforms, such as through the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was later struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015
|
Under the Collegium System:
|
|
For Prelims: Collegium system, National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), Supreme court, High court, Intelligence Bureau (IB), First Judges case, Second Judges Case, Third Judges Case, Article 124(2), Article 217, Law Commission, and 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.
For Mains: 1. What are the two systems of the appointment of Judges that has triggered the fresh debate on the Judicial system in India? (250 Words).
|
|
Previous year Question
1. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (UPSC 2021)
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A
2. In India, Judicial Review implies (UPSC 2017)
A. the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders
B. the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures
C. the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President
D. the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgments given earlier in similar or different cases
Answer: A
3. Consider the following statements:
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehavior' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, of 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2
B. 3 only
C. 3 and 4 only
D. 1, 3 and 4
Answer: C
|
