The Second Judges Case (1993) is formally titled Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India. This case emerged from a constitutional dispute regarding the procedure for the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges in India. The background includes:

• • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court, in the first judges case, upheld the primacy of the Executive in the appointment of judges, stating that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) only had a consultative role in the process.
• • Conflict: This led to tensions and conflicts between the judiciary and the executive over the appointment and transfer of judges, raising concerns about judicial independence and the effectiveness of the appointment process.

The key issues addressed in the Second Judges Case were:

• 1. Primacy in Judicial Appointments: Whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has the primacy or the final say in the appointment and transfer of judges, or whether the President (the executive) has the ultimate authority.
• 2. Consultative Process: The nature and extent of consultation required between the CJI and the executive in the appointment of judges.
• 3. Judicial Independence: The impact of the appointment process on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment delivered on October 6, 1993, made several crucial rulings:

• 1. Interpretation of Article 124 COI: The term ‘consultation’ would mean ‘concurrence’.
• 2. Primacy of the CJI: The Court ruled that the CJI has the primacy in the appointment and transfer of judges. This marked a significant departure from the earlier First Judges Case ruling. The judgment established that the opinion of the CJI, as the head of the judiciary, must be understood as ‘Concurrence’ under Article 124 of the Constitution.
• 3. Collegium System: The Court thereby emphasized the need for a 'collegium' system involving the CJI and a group of senior judges to recommend appointments and transfers of judges. This collegium system was intended to ensure that judicial appointments and transfers were made based on the merit and independence of the judiciary, rather than executive influence.
• 4. Consultation Process: The judgment clarified that while the executive (President of India) must consult the CJI, it is the CJI’s recommendation that holds primacy. The executive cannot reject the CJI’s recommendations without valid reasons.
• 5. Judicial Independence: The Court underscored that the independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and judicial appointments must not be influenced by political considerations or executive interference.

The Second Judges Case fundamentally altered the landscape of judicial appointments in India by establishing the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the collegium system. The judgment aimed to protect the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that appointments and transfers of judges were made based on merit and judicial considerations, rather than executive or political influence. This case established the autonomy of the Judiciary in the appointment of Judges of higher courts.

The collegium system, though criticized by some for its lack of transparency, has since been the cornerstone of the judicial appointment process in India.