Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs Union of India
Authors/Creators
- 1. NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru
- 2. University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprashtha University
Description
This article considers "judge hegemony" in the appointment of judges, as defined in the case under consideration. The NJAC ruling saved the independence of judges. Article 99 of the Constitutional Amendment aimed at replacing the "collegium" method of appointing judges with the National Committee for the Appointment of Judges ["NJAC"] was rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is to be decided before the Hon’ble Supreme Court whether the Second Judge's case saw the importance of the judiciary's top priority as part of the basic structure or as an "interpretative explanation" of Article 124 of the Constitution. In addition, the constitutionality of the 99th Amendment could not be ruled. Therefore, future attempts to change the way judges are appointed must remain true to the principles of the second judge's case.
Files
15.pdf
Files
(2.6 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:b3bab191bfc47f9731ef8f2c2f0afb7c
|
2.6 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Related works
References
- [1] Infra note 9 [2] Ibid [3] The Constitution of India,1950, art.124 [4] The Constitution of India,1950, art. 217 [5] The Constitution of India,1950, art. 224 [6] The Constitution of India, 1950,art. 145(3) [7] Infra note 9 [8] Apararajita Balaji, supreme court advocates on record association vs union of india,lawtimesjournal (last visited: March 14,2022) https://lawtimesjournal.in/supreme-court-advocates-on-record-association-vs-union-of-india/ [9] Anchal Chhallani, Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record & Ors. v. Union of India,Jus Dicere (Last visited: March 14,2022) https://www.jusdicere.in/supreme-court-advocates-on-record-ors-v-union-of-india/ [10] ibid [11] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461 [12] The Indian Constitution,1950, art. 124