CASE 1. SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE ON RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA
The supreme court of India struck down the ninety-ninth constitutional amendment as well as the national judicial appointment commission act and revived the pre-existing collegium system of judicial appointments.
The court observed:
Firstly, that the constitutionality of the ninety-ninth constitutional amendment act could not have been satisfactorily adjudicated by the supreme court without first determining whether the second judges case had held judicial primacy to be part of the basic structure or only on ‘interpretive gloss’ on 124 of the constitutional amendment act.
Secondly, all five judges have separate opinions on the national judicial appointment commission in the failure to do so.
Thirdly, that contrary to the argument advanced by Arghya Sengupta. A majority of three judges in the national judicial amendment act judgement held that judicial primacy is part of the basic structure. Consequently, any future attempt at changing the manner of judicial appointment will have to stay true to the principle of judicial primacy even though its foundation in the national judicial appointment commission judgement is arguably shaky.
In this case, the court struck down the ninety-ninth constitutional amendment which sought to replace the collegium system of judicial appointment with a national judicial appointment commission on the ground that it violated the basic constitutional feature of judicial interdependence.
CASE 2. YAKUB MEMON VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA
for second case law kindly visit the website