[8][9][10][11] On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies with Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead petitioner.
The validity of the constitutional amendment act and the NJAC Act were challenged by certain lawyers, lawyer associations and groups before the Supreme Court of India through public interest litigation writ petitions[15] who saw it as an attempt by the government to compromise with the independence of the country's judiciary.
[17] In a collective order, on 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 struck down the NJAC Act, 2014 meant to replace the two-decade old collegium system of appointing judges in the higher judiciary[18][19] stating that the NJAC was a clear attempt to compromise independence of the judiciary, which went against the Constitution's basic structure.
[19][20][21] The only one of the five-judge bench who opposed the majority decision was Jasti Chelameswar, who held that the proposed composition of the NJAC would not be a constitutional issue, and that it could have acted “as a check on unwholesome trade-offs within the collegium and incestuous accommodations between Judicial and Executive branches.”[22] The ruling party of India, Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been the main advocate of the NJAC, remains committed to it, citing instances of favouritism & nepotism within the collegium system,[23] the most notable case being the D. Y. Chandrachud, son of former CJI Y. V. Chandrachud being elevated by the collegium to be the next CJI.
On 3 November 2015 the Supreme Court upheld that it is open to bringing greater transparency in the collegium system within the following existing four parameters, with opinions from both the parties(petitioners who challenged the NJAC and the government).
[24][25] On 19 November 2015 the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the Supreme Court that the central government will not prepare a draft memorandum for judicial appointments contrary to committed earlier and suggested the same to be done through a judgement.
[26] On December 8, 2022, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who had also practiced in the Supreme Court as an advocate, commented in his maiden speech to the Rajya Sabha, that the Court's decision to strike down NJAC by invoking the basic structure doctrine, was an unprecedented encroachment on the powers of the parliament by the judiciary, thereby violating the theory of separating powers.