India’s Supreme Court stands as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values and the rule of law. At the very heart of this vital institution lies Article 124 of the Indian Constitution—a provision that sets out, with fine detail, the composition, appointment, tenure, and powers of its judges. Since its inception in 1950, Article 124 has both structured the Supreme Court’s inner workings and become a focus for fierce debate regarding judicial independence, executive oversight, and the evolving nature of India’s democracy.
Article 124 is the constitutional foundation for the Supreme Court’s existence and authority. It outlines several pivotal aspects:
Despite its apparent clarity, Article 124 has given rise to multiple interpretations in practice, leading to landmark decisions and persistent legal evolution.
Initially, the framers of the Constitution envisaged a system where the President, essentially on the advice of the executive, would appoint Supreme Court judges after consulting key legal and judicial figures. The intent was to ensure that no single organ—be it executive or judiciary—could dominate the process.
Over time, concerns about executive encroachment led to judicial innovation. In the 1993 Second Judges Case, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 124 to mandate a “collegium” of senior judges, including the Chief Justice, to recommend appointments. The executive, while consulted, could no longer appoint or reject candidates arbitrarily.
“The framers of the Constitution intended a process that balanced accountability with independence. The emergence of the collegium system, though unwritten, is a response to the challenges of upholding that delicate equilibrium.”
— Prof. Upendra Baxi, Constitutional Scholar
Under this system, the judiciary holds decisive sway over who sits on the Supreme Court bench, though not without controversies regarding transparency and allegations of insularity.
In 2014, Parliament attempted to reform this via the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, introducing lay representation in judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional in 2015, reasserting judicial primacy as crucial for independence.
Article 124(3) and 124(4) set out strict eligibility criteria for appointment. The emphasis is on considerable legal experience or academic distinction, ensuring that Supreme Court judges command expertise and respect.
This rigorous standard has kept the Court’s bench populated by individuals of high intellectual and ethical standing. Notably, debates continue around the lack of representation (by gender, regional, and social lines) despite formal qualifications being neutral.
Supreme Court judges retire at 65. Their removal requires impeachment by Parliament on proven misbehavior or incapacity—a safeguard meant to insulate judges from external pressures. However, in practice, impeachments are exceedingly rare, with only a handful of attempted or initiated actions in Indian history.
Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court, but its powers are defined throughout Part V, Chapter IV (Article 124-147). Still, Article 124 is the launching point for understanding the Court’s unique, sometimes controversial, role.
The Supreme Court hears disputes involving government entities, states, and individuals, and acts as the court of last resort in civil and criminal matters. It also issues writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
On the President’s reference, the Supreme Court provides advisory opinions—though these are not binding, they carry significant weight in influencing legislative or executive action.
Perhaps most critically, the Supreme Court has asserted its power to review laws, executive acts, and constitutional amendments for validity—protecting the Constitution’s “basic structure,” a doctrine emerging from decades of jurisprudence.
Over the decades, Supreme Court judges appointed under Article 124 have presided over momentous cases:
Despite its successes, India’s appointment and tenure process is not without criticism. The collegium system, though protecting judicial independence, is often seen as opaque and resistant to broader accountability. Concerns about lack of diversity, delay in appointments, and political undercurrents persist.
In recent years, delays in filling Supreme Court vacancies have drawn scrutiny, sometimes leading to bench strength dropping below sanctioned levels, which affects access to justice.
Comparing India’s Article 124 system to those in the United States or the United Kingdom reveals differing balances between executive, legislative, and judicial control.
India’s model, especially after the emergence of the collegium, is unique in the degree of judicial autonomy it affords while exposing tensions around transparency and democratic oversight.
Article 124 of the Indian Constitution remains the cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy and functioning. Over seventy years, its basic framework has proven resilient, yet dynamic, adapting to the shifting sands of Indian democracy.
While controversy over appointments continues, Article 124’s core objective—to create a Supreme Court both independent and accountable—guides ongoing constitutional debate. Reform, if it comes, must continue to balance the Court’s pivotal role with the public’s call for transparency and representation.
Article 124 lays down the framework for the establishment, appointment, qualifications, and removal of judges of the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court judges are formally appointed by the President of India, typically based on recommendations made by the Collegium of senior Supreme Court judges.
A candidate must be an Indian citizen, have at least ten years as a High Court judge, five years as an advocate in a High Court, or be recognized as a distinguished jurist.
Yes, a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by impeachment on the grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity, requiring a special majority in both houses of Parliament.
Yes, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) sought to alter this process, but it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the collegium system.
By outlining the process for appointment and secure tenure—including protection from arbitrary removal—Article 124 is crucial for safeguarding the independence of India’s highest judiciary.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) stands as a foundational legal framework that addresses a sweeping…
High Court writs form the cornerstone of judicial remedies in many legal systems—a direct means…
Section 329 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with one of the more grave…
In the intricate architecture of Indian civil litigation, Section 9 of the Code of Civil…
Marriage, within the framework of Indian society, is often viewed as a sacred and lifelong…
The evolution of property rights in India is a testament to the country’s shifting social,…