necessary. The process of judicial appointments has evolved over time, primarily through judicial interpretations. The Collegium System, established through the Second Judges Case (1993), plays a pivotal role in appointments. This system, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, involves the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, whose collective recommendations are crucial for new appointments.

In an attempt to replace the Collegium system, the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which included the executive in the process of appointments. However, in 2015, the NJAC was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, as it violated the principle of judicial independence embedded in the Basic Structure Doctrine, thus reinstating the Collegium system.

Qualifications for Appointment:

Article 124(3) outlines the qualifications for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court. A candidate must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Be a citizen of India.

• Have served as a judge of a High Court (or multiple High Courts in succession) for at least five years.

• Have been an advocate in a High Court (or multiple High Courts in succession) for at least ten years.

• Be considered a distinguished jurist by the President of India, based on exceptional legal scholarship and reputation.

Tenure of Judges:

According to Article 124(2), Supreme Court judges hold office until the age of 65. They may, however, resign earlier by submitting a resignation letter to the President of India. The tenure provided ensures the independence of the judiciary by protecting judges from external pressures and ensuring their decisions are based solely on the interpretation of the law, free from executive influence.

Removal of Judges:

Judges of the Supreme Court can only be removed for “proven misbehavior or incapacity,” as per Article 124(4). The process of removal involves a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament with a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, along with a majority of the total membership. This rigorous procedure ensures that the removal of judges is not arbitrary or politically motivated.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 elaborates on the process of investigation. A committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist conducts the inquiry. If the inquiry finds grounds for removal, a resolution is placed in Parliament. If passed, the President may issue an order for the judge’s removal.

Oath and Restrictions:

Under Article 124(6), before assuming office, a Supreme Court judge must take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution and the laws of India. Furthermore, Article 124(7) prohibits judges from practicing law in any court or before any authority in India after their retirement. This provision ensures impartiality and prevents conflicts of interest, maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

Salaries, Allowances, and Appointments:

According to Article 125, salaries, allowances, and privileges of Supreme Court judges are determined by Parliament. These benefits are specified in the Second Schedule of the Constitution and cannot be altered to a judge’s disadvantage after their appointment.

• Acting Chief Justice: Under Article 126, if the office of the CJI is vacant or the CJI is unable to perform their duties, the President can appoint an Acting Chief Justice.

• Ad Hoc Judges: Article 127 permits the CJI, with the President’s consent, to appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court when there is a lack of quorum or increased case load. These ad hoc judges hold the same powers and responsibilities as permanent Supreme Court judges during their tenure.

Attendance of Retired Judges:

Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India, with the consent of the President, can request retired judges from the Supreme Court or High Courts to act as Supreme Court judges. These retired judges enjoy the same privileges and powers as active judges but only serve if they give their consent.

Supreme Court as a Court of Record:

A significant instance of this authority occurred in the In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Another (AIR 2020 SC 4114) case, where the Supreme Court found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for tweets that undermined the Court’s authority, ultimately imposing a symbolic fine of ₹1.

A significant instance of this authority occurred in the In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Another (AIR 2020 SC 4114) case, where the Supreme Court found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for tweets that undermined the Court’s authority, ultimately imposing a symbolic fine of ₹1.

Seat of the Supreme Court:

Article 130 stipulates that the Supreme Court’s principal seat is in Delhi. However, the CJI, with the approval of the President, can decide to hold the Court’s sittings at other locations across the country if deemed necessary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India, established under Article 124, is not only the highest judicial body in the country but also the protector of constitutional values. Its formation, functioning, and powers reflect a sophisticated system designed to ensure judicial independence and uphold the rule of law. The Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution and its functioning as a Court of Record demonstrate its critical role in India’s democracy. Through a combination of constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court has maintained its position as the final arbiter of justice, thus upholding the core tenets of the Indian Constitution.