Which Constitutional Amendment Act dealing with National Judicial Appointments Commission, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court?
- (1)98th Constitutional Amendment Act
- (2)97th Constitutional Amendment Act
- (3)99th Constitutional Amendment Act
- (4)100th Constitutional Amendment Act
Answer
Why
Correct — option (3), 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.
The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C, creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The Commission was to recommend appointments of the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court Judges and High Court Chief Justices and Judges, and transfers of High Court judges.
The same Act replaced the consultation wording in Articles 124(2), 217(1) and 222(1) with the Commission's recommendation. It came into force on 13 April 2015.
The footnote to Article 124A in the official text of the Constitution records: "This amendment has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117."
Wikipedia's account of the case gives the decision as 4:1 by a five-judge Constitution Bench, with Justice J. Chelameswar dissenting. The majority declared both the amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional.
The idea to remember: 99th Amendment, 2014 → NJAC → struck down on 16 October 2015.
Why the others are wrong
- (1)98th Constitutional Amendment Act — The Constitution (Ninety-eighth Amendment) Act, 2012 inserted Article 371J, special provisions with respect to the State of Karnataka, with effect from 1 October 2013.
It lets the President provide for the Governor's special responsibility for a development board for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, equitable allocation of funds, and equitable opportunities for its people in public employment, education and vocational training.
- (2)97th Constitutional Amendment Act — The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 is the co-operative societies amendment. It added the words "or co-operative societies" to Article 19(1)(c), inserted Article 43B on promoting co-operative societies, and inserted Part IXB, The Co-operative Societies.
It came two amendments before the NJAC and concerns co-operatives, not the judiciary.
- (4)100th Constitutional Amendment Act — The Constitution (One Hundredth Amendment) Act, 2015 gave effect to the India–Bangladesh land boundary agreement: in its own words, "the acquiring of territories by India and transfer of certain territories to Bangladesh".
Its entries in the First Schedule, for States such as Assam, carry effect from 31 July 2015. It deals with territory, not with appointing judges.
Concept
Article 124A set out the NJAC's six members: the Chief Justice of India as Chairperson, the two next senior Supreme Court Judges, the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons.
The eminent persons were to be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the single largest opposition party.
One of them had to be from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities or Women; each was to serve three years, without renomination.
The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system of appointing judges. The judgment of 16 October 2015 ended that change.
RPSC's 2021 syllabus lists "President, Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Parliament, Supreme Court & Judicial Review." under the Indian Political System. Judicial review of constitutional amendments is where this case sits.
The case reaches Rajasthan through Article 217(1). The 99th Amendment rewrote the clause on appointing High Court Judges, including those of the Rajasthan High Court, and the official text still prints that wording with a footnote that the amendment was struck down.
The amendment and the NJAC Act, 2014 were enacted together and brought into force on the same day, 13 April 2015.
Key facts
- The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 inserted Articles 124A, 124B and 124C, creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission; in force from 13 April 2015.
- Article 124A: Chief Justice of India (Chairperson), two next senior Supreme Court Judges, the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, judgment dated 16 October 2015 (AIR 2016 SC 117), struck the amendment down.
- Wikipedia: the Constitution Bench decided 4:1; Justice J. Chelameswar dissented.
- 98th Amendment (2012): Article 371J, Karnataka; 97th (2011): co-operative societies; 100th (2015): India–Bangladesh land boundary.
Source: footnotes and Appendix I of the official text of the Constitution of India.
Study next
Common traps
- Mixing the neighbouring numbers: 97th is co-operatives, 98th is Karnataka's Article 371J, 99th is the NJAC, 100th is the Bangladesh land boundary.
- Reading the NJAC wording still printed in Articles 124(2) and 217(1) as the rule in force: the official text footnotes it as struck down on 16 October 2015.
- Dating the amendment by 2015: the Act is the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014; 2015 is the year it took effect (13 April) and was struck down (16 October).
A question can name an institution created by an amendment and ask the amendment's number, or name the case that struck it down.
A question can also match amendments with their subjects, or ask who sat on the proposed Commission under Article 124A.
Related PYQs
Match List-A with List-B and identify the correct answer from the codes given below : List-A (Case) – List-B (Amendment challenged) A. Indira Gandhi V. Raj Narain – i. 42nd Amendment B. Minerva Mills V. Union of India – ii. 52nd Amendment C. Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachillu – iii. 39th Amendment D. P. Sambamurthy V. State of A.P. – iv. 32nd Amendment Codes :
- (1) A-i, B-iii, C-iv, D-ii
- (2) A-ii, B-iii, C-i, D-iv
- (3) A-iv, B-ii, C-iii, D-i
- (4) A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv
Answer(4)
Same idea of the Supreme Court testing a constitutional amendment: that question matches four cases with the amendments challenged in them (RPSC's key: A-iii, B-i, C-ii, D-iv). This one asks which amendment, on the NJAC, was declared unconstitutional.
Practice
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under Article 124A, as inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, who was to be the Chairperson of the National Judicial Appointments Commission?
- (a)The Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice
- (b)The Chief Justice of India
- (c)The Prime Minister
- (d)An eminent person nominated by a committee
Answer(2) — Article 124A(1)(a) names the Chief Justice of India as Chairperson, ex officio. Option (1) was a Member. Option (3) sat only on the committee nominating eminent persons. Option (4) describes two of the Members. - practice — not a real PYQ
Which constitutional amendment inserted Article 371J, with special provisions for the State of Karnataka?
- (a)97th Amendment
- (b)98th Amendment
- (c)99th Amendment
- (d)100th Amendment
Answer(2) — Article 371J was inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-eighth Amendment) Act, 2012, with effect from 1 October 2013. Option (1) concerns co-operative societies, option (3) the NJAC, and option (4) the India–Bangladesh land boundary.