DMPQ-“Dr. Ambedkar’s objection to the concurrence of Chief Justice in India in the appointment of Judges was legally allayed by the Second and Third Judges Cases.” Explain the statement in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India, 2015 (Fourth Judges case). Also explain why the Supreme Court did not consider it as necessary to review the Second and Third Judges decisions.

Dr. Ambedker’s objection was premised on the potential frailty in individual decision making, howsoever wise the person may be. As President acts on the advice of Council of Ministers, it was thought that “consultation” with Chief Justice of India (CJI) is better than the President being required to concur with the opinion of Chief Justice of India. But, in the light of the historical experience and the necessity to insulate Judicial appointments from politics, the

Second and Third Judges Judgments provided that President shall concur with the opinion of the CJI but made it mandatory for CJI to express a collective opinion, not an individual one.

The following are the reasons why the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) decided against revisiting Second and Third Judges Cases:

1. As per the legal position declared by the SC, it is not open to Union and State

Governments, to require the SC to examine the correctness of the judgments rendered in the Second and Third Judges cases. Such a course could only be adopted, if it is primarily established beyond all reasonable doubt, that the previous judgments were erroneous.

2. During the hearing of Third Judges case, the Union had accepted the Judgment rendered in Second Judges. Hence a revisit cannot be sought now.