The S. P. Gupta v. Union of India case emerged in the context of the principle of separation of powers, a foundational element of the Indian Constitution. This principle seeks to ensure that the functions of government are divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from gaining excessive power.

The case challenged the existing method of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, asserting that the appointment process was overly influenced by the executive branch and lacked proper involvement of the judiciary.

In particular, the case raised concerns about whether the executive branch, through the President, had too much control over judicial appointments and whether this violated the principle of separation of powers by potentially undermining the independence of the judiciary. The petitioner argued that the judiciary should have a more substantial role in the appointment process to maintain its autonomy and prevent any undue influence by the executive.

• 1. What the term “consultation” means under Clause (2) of Article 124 and Clause (1) of Article 217?
• 2. Whether the appointment of judges to the Constitutional courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) is an exclusive prerogative of the President, based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and that the term ‘consultation’ isn’t synonymous to ‘concurrence’?
• 3. Whether the existing process of judicial appointments undermines the independence of the judiciary and breaches the principle of separation of powers.

The bench by majority ruled that the word “consultation” could not be interpreted to mean “concurrence”

In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court ruled that while the judiciary's views are to be consulted, the ultimate authority for making appointments resides with the President.

The Court acknowledged the importance of maintaining judicial independence but concluded that the Constitution does not explicitly provide the judiciary with a decisive role in the appointment process. The judgment noted that the appointment process includes consultation with the judiciary, which serves as a safeguard, but the executive remains the final authority. The Court reasoned that this arrangement was consistent with the constitutional scheme, which emphasizes the role of the President and the Council of Ministers in the appointment process.

The S. P. Gupta v. Union of India judgment affirmed that the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary is primarily an executive function, with the President acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Although the judiciary's views are to be consulted, the ultimate power to appoint judges rests with the President. The ruling established a framework where the executive retains significant authority in judicial appointments, shaping the governance of the judiciary while maintaining the constitutional provisions of separation of powers.