99th Constitutional Amendment Act

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 is one of the most debated, controversial, and impactful amendments in the history of the Indian Constitut

99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 

---

Introduction: Why the 99th Amendment Became One of the Most Controversial and Historic Changes in India’s Legal System

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 is one of the most debated, controversial, and impactful amendments in the history of the Indian Constitution. Unlike amendments that deal with reservations, languages, state boundaries, or administration, this amendment attempted to change the very structure of judicial appointments in India. It introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a body meant to replace the long-standing Collegium System through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were appointed.

For nearly 20 years, India’s judiciary appointed its own judges without significant involvement from the government. This system, called the collegium, was created entirely by Supreme Court judgments and not written in the Constitution. Many praised it for protecting judicial independence, while others criticized it for being opaque, non-transparent, and secretive. Successive governments, legal experts, and members of civil society argued that judicial appointments needed accountability, transparency, and public scrutiny.

In this background, the Parliament decided to change the system through the 99th Amendment and establish the NJAC — a body that would include judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons in the appointment process. The amendment passed with overwhelming support in both Houses of Parliament and was ratified by a majority of states. It became law in 2014.

But its story did not end there.

In 2015, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment, declaring it unconstitutional. This became one of the most significant judicial decisions in modern India because it involved the judiciary striking down a constitutional amendment passed almost unanimously by Parliament and the states.

Thus, the 99th Amendment is not just a legal reform — it is a dramatic chapter in India’s constitutional evolution, involving debates on separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial independence, democratic accountability, and the limits of constitutional amendments.

To understand this amendment deeply, we must explore its background, reasons, structure, controversy, judicial review, and long-term implications. Only then can we appreciate why the 99th Amendment has such a powerful legacy, even though it is no longer operational.

---

Background: How the Collegium System Was Born and Why It Became Controversial

To understand the 99th Amendment, one must first understand the Collegium System, which it attempted to replace.

Originally, the Constitution gave the power to appoint Supreme Court and High Court judges to the President of India, who acted on the advice of the Union Government. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) had a consultative role, not a decisive one. But in the late 20th century, a series of Supreme Court judgments drastically changed this arrangement.

In the First Judges Case (1981), the Supreme Court held that the government had the final word in appointments.
In the Second Judges Case (1993), the Court reversed this, giving primacy to the Chief Justice and creating the Collegium.
In the Third Judges Case (1998), the Court expanded the Collegium to include a committee of senior judges.

This meant that the judiciary now appointed judges almost entirely by itself.

At first, many supported this system because it protected the judiciary from political interference. But over time, criticism grew. People argued that:

The collegium system lacked transparency
There was no record of why judges were selected or rejected
There was no accountability
There were allegations of favoritism
There was no representation for the public or government
The judiciary was appointing its own members without checks

The government and many jurists felt that judicial appointments should be made through a more balanced mechanism. This led to discussions about creating a National Judicial Commission.

When the NDA government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, it revived this idea and introduced the 99th Amendment.

---

Why the Government Introduced the 99th Amendment and the NJAC

The main objective behind the 99th Amendment was to bring transparency and accountability to judicial appointments. The government argued that the judiciary must remain independent but not self-governing without oversight. A system where judges appoint judges was seen by many as undemocratic.

The government believed that:

Judicial appointments affect the entire country
Appointments should reflect public interest
There must be checks to avoid bias
A constitutional commission would be more balanced

Thus, the amendment sought to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

The NJAC would include judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent individuals, therefore allowing participation of both judiciary and government, while also ensuring public representation.

---

What the 99th Amendment Actually Changed in the Constitution

The amendment introduced major changes.

It amended Articles 124(2) and 217(1) related to judicial appointments.
It introduced Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C, which structurally created the NJAC, defined its powers, and allowed Parliament to regulate its functioning.

In simple terms, the amendment removed the collegium system from the constitutional structure and replaced it with a new appointment mechanism through NJAC.

This was one of the biggest institutional reforms attempted since independence.

---

Understanding the NJAC: The Structure and Powers of the New Appointments Commission

The NJAC was designed to have six members:

Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
Union Minister of Law and Justice
Two eminent persons

The two eminent persons were to be selected by a committee consisting of:

The Prime Minister
The Chief Justice of India
The Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha

This structure attempted to balance:

Judicial independence
Government participation
Public representation

The NJAC was to recommend:

Appointments of Supreme Court judges
Transfers of High Court judges
Appointments of High Court judges

This was a significant departure from the judiciary-only collegium.

---

Why the NJAC Was Considered a Major Reform

The NJAC promised:

Transparency – because discussions could be structured and recorded
Public accountability – because non-judicial members were part of the process
Reduced favoritism – because decisions were shared
Balanced power – because judiciary and government shared responsibility
Better representation – because eminent persons represented civil society

Many believed the NJAC would end the secrecy of the collegium and make appointments more democratic.

The amendment passed almost unanimously in Parliament, with rare political unity.

---

Why the NJAC Faced Opposition from Some Legal Experts and Judges

While many welcomed the NJAC, others strongly opposed it. Critics argued:

Government participation could compromise judicial independence
Eminent persons could be politically influenced
Judicial review might be weakened
The judiciary must remain free from executive pressure

The central fear was that judicial independence is the cornerstone of democracy. If the government got a say in judicial appointments, it might try to influence judges.

Opponents believed that:

Judges must be insulated from political power
Appointments must remain independent
The NJAC could allow backdoor political control

Thus, the amendment became controversial—even though nearly all political parties supported it.

---

Parliament’s View: Why Political Parties Supported the NJAC

Interestingly, almost all political parties supported the 99th Amendment. The collegium system was criticized for being secretive and elitist. MPs argued that the judiciary was acting without transparency or accountability.

Parties believed:

A constitutional body is better than a judicially-created collegium
People must have a voice in judicial appointments
The government should not be entirely excluded from the process

Thus, the amendment enjoyed strong political backing.

---

How the NJAC Act and Amendment Came Into Effect

After presidential assent, the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act were notified in 2014 and became operational in April 2015.

For a brief period, India formally ended the collegium system.

But the story took a dramatic turn soon after.

---

Supreme Court Challenge: The Amendment Is Taken to Court

Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the amendment. The main argument was that the NJAC violated the basic structure doctrine by compromising judicial independence.

The basic structure doctrine holds that Parliament cannot change the fundamental features of the Constitution, such as:

Separation of powers
Judicial independence
Rule of law

Petitioners argued that the NJAC allowed political influence in judicial appointments, weakening the judiciary.

---

The Historic 2015 Judgment: The Supreme Court Strikes Down the 99th Amendment

In a landmark 4–1 verdict, the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that:

Judicial independence is part of the basic structure
Any amendment that threatens judicial independence is invalid
The NJAC allowed executive interference
Eminent persons could be influenced politically
Judges should have primacy in appointments

As a result, the collegium system was restored.

This became one of the most dramatic moments in Indian constitutional history because the Court struck down a constitutional amendment passed nearly unanimously by Parliament and ratified by states.

It was a direct clash between Parliament’s will and the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution.

---

Why the Supreme Court Believed NJAC Violated Judicial Independence

The Court felt the NJAC structure was flawed. If the Law Minister and two eminent persons disagreed with the judges, they could block any appointment. This meant the executive indirectly gained veto power.

The Court believed this endangered the judiciary’s freedom, especially in politically sensitive cases.

The majority opinion insisted:

Judges must appoint judges
The executive must not interfere
The judiciary must remain insulated

Thus, the amendment was struck down.

---

The Lone Dissent: Justice Chelameswar’s Powerful Opinion

Justice J. Chelameswar disagreed with the majority. His dissent became famous. He argued:

The collegium is opaque and unaccountable
The NJAC could improve transparency
Public participation is necessary
Judicial independence does not require isolation

His dissent sparked national debates about the future of judicial appointments.

---

The Aftermath: What Happened After the NJAC Was Struck Down

The collegium system returned, but the Court agreed that the system needed improvement. It acknowledged:

Lack of transparency
Lack of records
Absence of clear criteria

The Court invited suggestions from the government and public. Though reforms were attempted, many believe the collegium today still lacks transparency.

Thus, the NJAC remains a major missed reform opportunity in the eyes of many.

---

Long-Term Impact of the 99th Amendment

Even though it was struck down, the amendment produced important consequences:

It sparked national discussion about judicial reform
It pressured the judiciary to improve the collegium
It highlighted the tension between Parliament and judiciary
It defined limits on constitutional amendments
It influenced later debates on judicial transparency

The 99th Amendment remains a landmark moment in constitutional history.

---

Conclusion: The 99th Amendment as a Battle Between Accountability and Independence

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, though struck down, remains one of the most significant constitutional episodes in India. It attempted to replace the collegium with the NJAC, aiming for transparency and accountability. But the Supreme Court struck it down to protect judicial independence.

The amendment reflects the struggle between:

Executive accountability
Judicial independence
Parliamentary supremacy
Constitutional limits

The story of the NJAC is not just about judicial appointments — it is about the checks and balances that hold India’s democracy together.

It is a lesson that even constitutional amendments must survive the test of the Constitution’s basic structure. And it is a reminder that India’s democracy is built on a delicate balance between institutions.