Parties and roles: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. The 99th Amendment replaced the judges' collegium with the National Judicial Appointments Commission, comprising senior judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. Supporters saw it as a democratic answer to opacity and self-selection. Challengers feared political participation and a two-member veto could compromise decisional independence. The dispute required balancing accountability in appointments against judicial independence as a basic constitutional feature. Procedural and real-world context: 2014: Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act. | 2015: Validity challenged; Constitution Bench heard the matter. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve did the 99th Amendment damage the basic structure by removing judicial primacy? Was the NJAC's composition and veto compatible with judicial independence? Could the amendment and statute be severed or sustained? The outcome mattered immediately because by 4:1, the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act were struck down; the collegium system revived. The majority held that judicial independence, including sufficient judicial primacy in appointments, forms part of the basic structure and the NJAC design created an unacceptable risk of executive influence. Procedural setting: 2014: Parliament enacted the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act. | 2015: Validity challenged; Constitution Bench heard the matter. | 16 Oct 2015: Amendment and Act invalidated 4:1. | Dec 2015: Separate order invited improvements to collegium procedure. The central problem before the Court was did the 99th Amendment damage the basic structure by removing judicial primacy? Was the NJAC's composition and veto compatible with judicial independence? Could the amendment and statute be severed or sustained? The controversy was considered in the framework of Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014; National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, together with Constitution arts.124, 217, 222, 368 and related appointment provisions. The wider importance of the case lies in basic structure; judicial independence; judicial primacy; constitutional amendment review; institutional checks.

Petitioners: judicial primacy in appointments is essential to independence; executive and eminent-person veto exposed appointments to political influence. | Union: the Constitution does not require judicial exclusivity; a broad-based commission improves transparency, checks nepotism and still contains a judicial majority. Competing positions in context: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's position: as the petitioner, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Basic structure; judicial independence; judicial primacy; constitutional amendment review; institutional checks. Union of India's position: as respondent, Union of India resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014; National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and Constitution arts.124, 217, 222, 368 and related appointment provisions, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

By 4:1, the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act were struck down; the collegium system revived. The majority held that judicial independence, including sufficient judicial primacy in appointments, forms part of the basic structure and the NJAC design created an unacceptable risk of executive influence. Justice Chelameswar dissented, criticizing collegium opacity. The Court separately pursued procedural improvements to the collegium. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Basic structure; judicial independence; judicial primacy; constitutional amendment review; institutional checks and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 13/2015 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014; National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014; National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014

Constitution arts.124, 217, 222, 368 and related appointment provisions

Basic structure; judicial independence; judicial primacy; constitutional amendment review; institutional checks