Which Constitutional Amendment Act inserted Article 124A and created the National Judicial Appointments Commission?

The correct answer is B, Article 124. Article 124(1) establishes the Supreme Court, and Article 124(2) provides that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President may deem necessary; its proviso makes consultation with the Chief Justice of India compulsory for the appointment of any judge other than the Chief Justice himself. Option A, Article 122, is wrong because it bars courts from inquiring into the proceedings of Parliament. Option C, Article 127, is wrong because it deals with the appointment of ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of India, not with regular appointments. Option D, Article 217, is wrong because it governs the appointment of judges of a High Court, which is a different provision altogether.

The correct answer is A, S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), known as the First Judges Case. The Court there read "consultation" literally, holding that the Chief Justice of India's opinion was not binding on the government, which therefore kept the final say in appointments. Option B, the Second Judges Case of 1993, is wrong because it reversed this very position, holding that consultation means concurrence and giving primacy to the Chief Justice of India, and in doing so created the collegium. Option C, the Third Judges Case of 1998, is wrong because it only expanded the collegium to the Chief Justice of India and his four senior-most colleagues on a Presidential reference. Option D is wrong because Kesavananda Bharati laid down the basic structure doctrine and did not deal with judicial appointments.

The correct answer is C, four senior-most judges. The Second Judges Case of 1993 required the Chief Justice of India to form his opinion in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues, so the first collegium had three members. In 1998 the President made a reference under Article 143, and in the Third Judges Case the Court enlarged the collegium for Supreme Court appointments to the Chief Justice of India plus his four senior-most colleagues, and directed that the opinions be recorded in writing. Option A is wrong because two colleagues is the 1993 position, which still applies to High Court appointments. Option B and option D are wrong because the numbers three and five were never prescribed for this purpose; the figure of four is the one the 1998 opinion fixed and the Memorandum of Procedure follows.

The correct answer is C, the Attorney General of India, who was never a member of the Commission. Article 124A gave the National Judicial Appointments Commission six members: the Chief Justice of India as ex officio chairperson, the two next senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Options A, B and D therefore name genuine members and are wrong answers to a question asking for the exception. One of the two eminent persons had to belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities or women, and both held office for three years and could not be renominated.

The correct answer is B, 4:1, with Justice J. Chelameswar dissenting. A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Ninety-ninth Amendment and the NJAC Act violated the independence of the judiciary, which is part of the basic structure, mainly because the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons would sit on a body selecting judges. Justice Chelameswar alone upheld the amendment, arguing that the collegium lacked transparency. Option A is wrong because the bench had five judges and the split was not three to two. Option C is wrong because the decision was not unanimous. Option D is wrong because a bench of five judges cannot divide four to three, and Justice Madan Lokur was in the majority that struck the amendment down. The bench also struck down Article 124C, which had allowed Parliament to regulate the procedure of appointment by law, and the judgment is now the leading authority on judicial independence as a facet of the basic structure.