The Appointment of the Chief Justice of India: A Constitutional and Judicial Perspective

The process of appointing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is an integral part of India's judicial system, ensuring both judicial independence and a smooth transition of leadership within the highest court of the land. While the Indian Constitution does not specifically enumerate the procedure for the appointment of the CJI, it outlines the establishment of the Supreme Court of India and designates the position of the Chief Justice under Article 124(1). Over time, judicial precedents have shaped the process, particularly the interpretation of Articles 124(2) and 124(1), and the norms governing the selection of the CJI.

Constitutional Framework and Judicial Precedents

Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution simply states that there shall be a Supreme Court, and that it shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may deem fit. Article 124(2) further empowers the President to appoint the Chief Justice of India, albeit the method and criteria for this appointment have been influenced by judicial interpretations over the years.

In the landmark Second Judges Case (1993), the Supreme Court clarified that the appointment of the Chief Justice must follow the principle of seniority. This ruling established that the President of India must appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice. The Court held that the "seniority principle" serves to maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, preventing political influence in the selection of the highest judicial officer. However, the Constitution does not expressly codify this requirement, leaving it to the judicial interpretations to define the specifics.

                    Read Also:-   Chief justice of India 2024

Further refinement came in the Third Judges Case (1998), which resulted in the creation of the "collegium system." The collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India and a group of the next four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The Third Judges Case expanded on the Second Judges Case by emphasizing that the Chief Justice of India should consult with a plurality of senior judges before making recommendations regarding judicial appointments and transfers. In this context, the collegium system aims to ensure a collective decision-making process, reducing the risk of bias or undue influence in the selection of judges.

While the Supreme Court has stated that the CJI should generally be the senior-most judge, the President retains the discretion to appoint any judge of the Supreme Court to the position. This means that, in rare instances, the President may bypass the seniority principle, though such a decision has the potential to undermine the traditional norms of judicial independence.

Role of the President and the Prime Minister

Although the President of India holds the constitutional authority to appoint the Chief Justice of India, this decision is made based on the advice of the Union Law Minister, who in turn advises the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then forwards the recommendation to the President. In practice, however, the appointment of the CJI is guided by the collegium's recommendation, a practice rooted in the Third Judges Case (1998). This system effectively minimizes executive interference in judicial appointments and reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

Oath of Office and Tenure

Upon appointment, the Chief Justice of India takes an oath of office before the President of India, as per the constitutional requirement. The CJI holds office until the age of 65, or until retirement, whichever occurs first. This age limit ensures that the leadership of the Supreme Court remains dynamic, with the position being filled by the next most senior judge once the incumbent demits office. Should the office of the CJI become vacant due to retirement or other reasons, the President appoints the next senior-most judge of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The appointment of the Chief Justice of India is an evolving process, influenced by both constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations. While the principle of seniority remains a cornerstone of the selection process, the collegium system has provided a mechanism for greater transparency and collective decision-making. This system safeguards judicial independence by ensuring that appointments are made without undue influence from the executive. Ultimately, the independence and integrity of the judiciary depend on the consistent application of these norms, ensuring that the Chief Justice of India remains a symbol of impartiality and constitutional stewardship.

Chief Justice Of India 2024: Sanjeev Khanna

 

President Draupadi Murmu administered the oath of the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday (November 11, 2024) at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

He comes from a distinguished legal family and is the third generation of his family to enter a legal profession. His father, justice Dev Raj Khanna, was a former Delhi High Court judge,and his uncle, HR Khanna was a renowned supreme court judge.

The swearing-in ceremony of the 51st Chief Justice of India at Rashtrapati Bhavan saw Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, government Ministers, former Chief Justices of India, sitting and retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in attendance.

At ten in the morning, President Droupadi Murmu gave him the oath of office. He will hold the position of Chief Justice of India for a period of six months.

                           Read Also:- National legal service

The outgoing Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who retired on November 10 after serving since November 9, 2022, nominated Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the Supreme Court's second-most senior judge, to be Chief Justice. Sanjiv Khanna, who was born on May 14, 1960, started practicing law in 1983 as an advocate for the Delhi Bar Council. He has a wealth of knowledge in the areas of taxation, arbitration, commercial law, environmental law, and constitutional law.

Justice Khanna also served as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. In 2004, he was appointed Standing Counsel (Civil) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Justice Khanna's noteworthy judicial career began in 2005 when he was appointed as an additional judge of the Delhi High Court and in 2006 when he was made a permanent judge. Justice Khanna had a crucial part in forming the legal system during his time there by making important contributions to the Delhi Judicial Academy, Delhi International Arbitration Center, and District Court Mediation Centers.

Justice Khanna was appointed to the Supreme Court on January 18, 2019, despite never having held the position of Chief Justice of a High Court. 

Arvind Kejriwal, the former chief minister of Delhi, was granted interim bail by Justice Khanna, one of his many historic rulings. Kejriwal was able to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections thanks to this judgment. In yet another significant decision, Justice Khanna emphasized that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) may legitimately issue bail in cases when procedures have been delayed. This ruling was made in a case involving Manish Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister of Delhi.

As chief justice, khanna is widely recognised for his commitment to reducing judicial pendency and accelerating the pace of justice delivery in India.