SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD  ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 975, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
r2015J 14 s.c.R. 975 
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD 
A 
ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of2015) 
B 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. CHELAMESWAR, 
MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND ADARSH 
KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
C 
Judiciary - Higher judiciary - Appointment of judges 
to the higher judiciary - Improvement in the working of the 
coflegium system - Issuance of guidelines to make the 
co/legium system of judges more transparent and 
.accountable - Government of India to finalize the existing D 
Memorandum of Procedure. (MOP) by supplementing it in 
consultation with the Chief Justice of India-' The Chief Justice 
of India will take a decision based on the unanimous view of 
the coflegium comprising the four senior most puisne Judges 
of the Supreme Court - They would take into consideration 
E 
suggestions on the issues of eligibility criteria, transparency 
in the appointment process, Secretariat, complaints and 
· other matters in the MOP. 
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association 
v. Union of India 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659: (1993) 
4 SCC 441; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 
1998 (2) Suppl. scR 400: (1998) 7 sec 739 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 referred to. 
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 400 referred to. 
975 
Para 6. 
Para 7. 
F 
G 
H
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
13of2015. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
B 
W. P. (C) Nos. 23, 70, 83, 108, 124, 14, 18, 24, 209, 
309, 310, 323 and 341 of 2015 and T. P. (C) Nos. 391 and 
971 of2015. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Pinky Anand, 
ASG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, C. D. Singh, Anil Grover, 
C Suryanarayana Singh, Gaurav Bhatia, Ajay Bansal, AA Gs, F ali 
S. Nariman, Anil B. Divan, R. K. P. Shankardas, K. N. Bhat, 
Sunil Gupta, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Arvind P. Datar, 
K. K. Venugopal, Subramonium Prasad, T. R.Andhyarujina, 
D Vijay Hansaria, Siddharth Luthra, Manan Kumar Mishra, 
P. P. Rao, Ram Jethmalani, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Gopal 
Subramanium, Jaideep Gupta, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, 
S. G. Hasnain, Sr. Advs., Subhash C. Sharma, Mrs. Astha 
Deep, S. K.Anand, Surya Kant, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Santosh 
Paul, Joseph Aristotle S., Arvind Gupta, Ms. Priya Aristotle, 
E Ms. Savita Singh, M. B. Elakkumanan, Ms. Swati Singh, 
Raghav Shekhar, Prashant Bhushan, Prashant Kumar, 
Ms. Anindita Pujari, Syed Rehan, Ranvir Singh, Jitendra Kr. 
Mohapatra, A. C. Philip, Anjan Sinha, Rabin Majumder, 
V. N. Subramanian, Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Prachi Bajpai, 
F Sriram Parakkat, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Nikhil 
Rohatgi, Sameer Rohatgi, D. L. Chidananda, R. K. Verma, 
Mrs. Madhvi Div;-in, Thangathurai, Ms. S. Sharma, Arghya 
Sengupta,Abhinav Mukherji, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Diksha
Rai, 
Ajay Sharma, Ms. Devanshi P., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Samit 
G Khosla, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Gurmehar Singh S., Prabal 
Bagchi, Karan Seth, Rishabh Jain, Ms. Kritika Sachdeva, 
Ms. Snidha Mehra, Ms. Somya Thakur, B. V. Balaram Das, 
Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Avanish Rathi, 
(For Ms. Ruchi Kohli), Tapesh Kr. Singh, Mohd. Waquas, 
H
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD 
977 
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
Shashamk Singh, Sylona Mohapatra, A. P. Mayee, Gautam A 
Narayan, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Linthoingambi Thongam, 
Z. H. Isaac Haiding, Ashok Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kr. Visen, 
· Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Pragati Nekhra, V. G. Pragasam, Prabu 
Ramasubramanian, Ahmad Abdi, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, 
Ashutosh Dubey, Dr. B. K. Jauhari, Shashank Bajpai, B 
Ms. Pumima Jauhari, Prakash Kumar Singh, Utkarsh Jaiswal, 
Gaurav Srivastava, Abhisht Kumar, Sarai Chaturvedi, Abhishek 
Kumar Singh, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira, Ms. Vinakshi 
Kadan, (For Ms. Hemantika Wahi), Jagjit Singh Chhabra, 
Kuldip Singh, Gaurav Yadava, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ritu Raj C 
Biswas, Gopal Singh, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Nishant 
Katneshwarkar, Arpit Rai, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, 
Ms. D. Bharthi Reddy._Aviral Saxena, Ms. Shivani Khandekar, 
Ms.Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. AnuradhaArputham, 
Yusuf, Shobhit Nanda, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, D 
· Amit Kumar Singh, Shivam Singh, Dattaprasad Lawande, 
Puma Bhandari, S. S. Rebello, Aurobindo Gomes Pereira, 
K. C. Kaushik, Ms. Shilpi Staya Priya Satyam, 
Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, J. D. Nankani, Ms.Anjana Singh, 
Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms. Shobha, Avnish Pandey, Abhinav E 
Hansaria, Ms. Priyanka S. Mathur, Ms. Sunita Rao, Dr. Ritu 
Bhardwaj, Ms.Anjali Dwivedi,A. D. N. Rao,Annam Venkatesh, 
Sudipto Sircar, Ms~ Neelam Jain, Ms. Vaishali P., Ms. Ankita 
Chadha, Parijat Sinha, Joydeep Mazumdar, Kaleeswaram
Raj, Prasanth P.,Ms. Lala Krishnamurti, Ms. Vagisha Kochar, 
F 
P. R, Mala, Gautam Talukdar, Naik H. K., Prateek Chadha, 
Rudra Pratap Singh, Dr. Surat Singh, Sudhanshu Palo, 
Ms. Shobha, S. S. Rawat, Ajay Kumar Singh, (For M. S. Mahra, 
Ajay Prapa Sharma, K. S. Mahadevan, Krishna Kumar R. S., 
K. K. L. Gautam, (For Rajesh Kumar), Ms. Sneha Kalita, G 
Ms. Prerna Kumari, Arun Monga, (For Tushar Bakshi, Virag 
Gupta, Varun Thakur, (ForV. K. Sharma), DeepakA. Masih, 
Ms. Manreet Kaur, (ForV. K. Sharma), (ForR. N. Keshwani), 
R. P. Luthra, S. S. Nehra, Prabhash Yadav, Saurabh Yadav, 
Chand Kiran, (For P. I. Jose), Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, 
H
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
(Col.) Ved Prakash, A. K. De, Ms. Indira Unninayar, Ashwani 
Upadhyay, A. Subba Rao, R. Krishnamurthy, Advs. for the 
appearing parties. 
Mathews J. Nedumpara, P. M. Duraiswamy Manohar Lal 
Sharma, R. K. Kapoor, Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, Rajiv Daiya, 
B Ashish Dixit, (Petioner-in-person). 
The following Order of the Court was passed: 
ORDER 
1. The adjudication on the merits of the controversy, 
C raised in this batch of cases, was rendered on 16th October, 
2015, wherein a separate "Order of the Court" was also 
recorded. In paragraph 5 of the Order of the Court, it was 
decided to consider the incorporation of additional appropriate 
0 
measures, if any, for an improved working of the "collegium 
system". For the above purpose, hearing was fixed for (and 
commenced on) 3ro November, 2015. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, 
learned Attorney General for India, preferred written 
suggestions and supplemented them with oral submissions. 
Likewise, other learned senior counsel were also heard and 
E they too presented their views. Submissions were advanced 
freely, solely with the objective of introducing measures in the 
prevailing "collegium system" of appointment of Judges to the 
higher judiciary, which in the perception of the concerned 
learned counsel, would improve the working of the system. 
F 
2. From the first hearing itself, it emerged that the 
suggestions were on diverse issues. A few suggestions, 
though honestly and meaningfully
expressed, contained 
diametrically opposite recommendations. It was therefore 
G felt that the suggestions received should be compiled in an 
orderly manner so as to enable all concerned stakeholders to 
have a bird's eye view of the same, thereby possibly making 
the debate thereon more judicious. Accordingly, on the 
nomination by the learned Attorney General, of Mrs. Pinki 
H Anand, Additional Solicitor General, and on the unanimous
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD 
979 
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
endorsement of all the learned counsel representing the A 
petitioners, of Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, a two-
member committee was constituted. The committee was 
requested to make a compilation of the suggestions received 
upto 4th November, 2015. The above committee presented 
the compilation on 5th November, 2015. 
B 
· 3. After hearing the Chairman of the Bar Council of India 
and learned counsel some of whom had travelled from distant 
States, it was felt that a further opportunity should be afforded 
to the stakeholders to furnish their valuable contributions on 
the matter. It is therefore, that the following order came to be C 
passed on 5th November, 2015: 
"Mrs. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, 
and Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Advocate have 
made a compilation of suggestions received up to 23.45 D 
hours on 4.11.2015, in furtherance of our motion Bench 
order dated 3.11.2015. A large number of learned 
counsel have even today prayed for further time to make 
suggestions. They have also requested for time on 
behalf of private individuals for the same purpose. 
E 
The Chairman of the Bar Council of India has also made 
a prayer, that the Bar Council of India which is the apex 
body of all the State Bar Councils, be permitted to gather 
suggestions from all stake holders, and submit such of 
the suggestions as it approves, for consideration by this 
F 
Court. 
The
learned Attorney General for India has volunteered 
to facilitate the prayer made by the learned counsel, by 
web-hosting the compilation made by the Additional 
Solicitor General and the learned Senior Counsel G 
referred to above, on the web site of the Department of 
Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, and also, 
to issue a public notice in the media seeking suggestions 
from all those who may desire to make contribution by 
17.00 hours on 13.11.2015 (up to 14.11.2015 by the Bar H
980 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
Council of India). Suggestions may be made in the four 
categories, i.e., Transparency, Collegium Secretariat, 
Eligibility Criteria and Complaints. 
We appreciate the efforts made by the learned Attorney 
General for India. He may web-host the compilation and 
issue a WP(C)No.13/15 etc.etc. 8 public notice. 
Likewise, all those who desire to make suggestions may 
do so directly, on the website of the Departm'ent of 
Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi. 
Suggestions received by 17.00 hours on 13.11.2015 shall 
be entertained. No further suggestions will be entertained. 
All such suggestions will be forwarded by the Department 
of Justice to the learned counsel who had assisted this 
Court in the previous compilation, for incorporating 
additional suggestions in the earlier compilation, for 
consideration. 
List on 18.11.2015 for hearing. Hearing shall be limited 
to two days and will conclude on 19.11.2015. Hearing 
shall be limited to such of the counsel who are short-listed 
and allowed time by a Committee comprising of learned 
Attorney General for India, the Chairman, Bar Council of 
India, and Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned Senior Advocate. 
No other counsel shall be heard." 
4. During the resumed hearing, all those who desired to 
F 
address the Court were afforded an opportunity of being heard. 
After all, this assistance to the Bench was being rendered pro 
bono publico, in the interest of the
judiciary as an institution, 
as well as for and on behalf of all stakeholders. 
5. It is important to note that the compilation of the written 
G suggestions placed before us was in the nature of a summary 
p~epared out of approximately 11,500 pages of views 
expressed. We had a very challenging responsibility to embark 
upon and reflect, and thereafter, to sieve such of the 
suggestions as were likely to improve the "collegium system". 
H
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD 
981 
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
Only then would we be in a position to sponsor their introduction A 
into the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of 
Judges of the higher judiciary. 
6. Even though the task seemed to be daunting, we felt 
obliged to take up the responsibility, as it was after all, for an 
improvement of the judicial system and such an opportunity 8 
must not be lost. It was at this stage of our reflection, that the 
learned Attorney General made an impassioned submission, 
not in any obstructive manner, but as a matter of faithful 
assistance, suggesting that we should desist from pursuing 
the contemplated course of action. In this behalf it was pointed C 
out, that the formulation of the Memorandum of Procedure was 
an administrative responsibility which fell in the executive 
domain. It was submitted that this Court neither had the 
expertise nor the wherewithal for proposing amendments in 
the existing Memorandum of Procedure (drawn on 3Q'h June, D 
1999 by the Government of India), for improving the collegium 
system. The learned Attorney General in his submission 
candidly invited our attention to the following observations 
recorded in paragraph 4 78 of the Second Judges case1: 
E 
"478 ..... (13) On initiation of the proposal by the Chief 
Justice of India or the Chief Justice of the High Court, as 
the case may be, copies thereof should be sent 
simultaneously to all the other constitutional
fun9(ionaries 
involved. Within the period of six weeks from receipt of 
~ 
; -
the same, the other functionaries must convey their 
opinion to the Chief Justice of India. In case any such 
functionary disagrees, it should convey its disagreement 
within that period to the others. The others, if they change 
their earlier opinion, must, within a further period of six G 
weeks, so convey it to the Chief Justice of India. The 
Chief Justice of India would then form his final opinion 
and convey it to the President within four weeks, for final 
1 Supreme CourtAdvocates-on-RecordAssociaijon v. Union of India, (1993) 
4SCC441 
H
.• 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
action to be taken. It is appropriate that a memorandum 
of procedure be issued by the Government of India to 
this effect. after consulting the Chief Justice of India. and 
with the modifications. if any, suggested by the Chief 
B 
Justice of India to effectuate the puroose ..... " 
(emphasis supplied) 
It was submitted that even the nine-Judge Bench had left 
the task of drawing up the Memorandum of Procedure to the 
Government of India. 
C 
7. It was the further submission of the learned Attorney 
General that the views expressed by this Court, while 
disposing of the main controversy would enable the 
Government of India, to introduce amendments and to redraw 
the existing Memorandum of Procedure with the object of 
D considering the criteria/benchmark for the appointment of 
Judges of the higher Judiciary, including widening the zone of 
consideration; to introduce transparency in the matter of 
appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, as would be 
appropriate, keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issue; to 
E make the present procedure broad based, by introducing 
supporting measures, whereby candidates can be screened 
and evaluated, and complaints against them are evaluated 
through a Secretariat constituted for the said purpose, under 
the control of the Chief Justice of India, as supplemental (and 
F 
not as a substitute) to the process contemplated through the 
Second Judges case and the Third Judges
case2 as well as 
our judgment on merits in the present batch of cases. 
8. We may also record, thatthe introduction of the above 
changes referred to in the preceding paragraph, are broadly 
G in tune with the majority of the suggestions. These were also 
referred to by us by the committee under the category of 
"transparency", "secretariat", "eligibility criteria" and 
"complaints", in our order dated 5th November, 2015. 
H 
'Special Reference No. 1of1998, (1998) 7 SCC 739
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD 
983 
ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
9. During the course of hearing, we were also informed A 
by the learned Attorney General, that the Memorandum of 
· Procedure and introducing amendments therein, had always 
been prepared by the Government of India in consultation with 
the President of India and the Chief Justice of India. This 
practice, we were informed, had been consistently adopted, 
B 
in consonance with the directions contained in paragraph 4 78 
of the Second Judges case. In order to allay any fear that may 
be entertained by any of the stakeholders, it was submitted 
that the same procedure would be adopted now, if the task 
was entrusted to the executive. We are in complete agreement C 
with the suggestion of the learned Attorney General. 
10. In view of the above, the Government of India may 
finalize the existing Memorandum of Procedure by 
supplementing it in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. 
The Chief Justice of India will take a decision based on the D 
unanimous view of the collegium comprising the four 
seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. They shall 
take the following factors into consideration: 
Eligibility criteria 
The Memorandum of Procedure may indicate the 
eligibility criteria, such as the minimum age, forthe guidance 
E 
of the collegiLim (both at the level of the High Court and the 
Supreme Court) for appointment of Judges, after inviting and 
taking into consideration the views of the
State Government F 
and the Government of India (as the case may be) from time 
to time. 
Transparency in the appointment process 
th M
The eligdibility fcpriteriadandfthehproced~re as deftailed in 
G. 
e emoran um o 
roce ure or t e appointment o Judges 
ought to be made available on the website of the Court 
concerned and on the website of the Department of Justice of 
the Government of India. The Memorandum of Procedure may 
provide for an appropriate procedure for minuting the H
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
discussions including recording the dissenting opinion of the 
Judges in the collegium while making provision for the 
confidentiality of the minutes consistent with the requirement 
of transparency in the.system of appointment of Judges. 
B 
Secretariat 
· 
In the interest of better management of the system of 
appointment of Judges, the Memorandum of Procedure may 
provide for the establishment of a Secretariat for each High 
Court and the Supreme Court and prescribe its functions, 
c duties and responsibilities. 
Complaints 
The Memorandum of Procedure may provide for an 
appropriate mechanism and procedure for dealing with 
0 
complaints against anyone who is being considered for 
appointment as a Judge. 
Miscellaneous 
The Memorandum of Procedure may provide for any 
other matter considered appropriate for ensuring transparency 
E and accountability including interaction with the 
recommendee(s) by the collegium of the Supreme Court, 
without sacrificing the confidentiality of the appointment 
process. 
F 
11. It is made clear that the guidelines mentioned above 
are only broad suggestions for consideration and 
supplementing the Memorandum of Procedure for the faithful 
implementation of the principles laid down_ in the Second 
Judges case and the Third Judges case. 
G 
12. In view of the above, all matters having been 
collectively heard, are disposed of. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matters disposed of.