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. Earlier in August 2014, Supreme Court had dismissed few Writ Petitions challenging the validity of NJAC on the ground that the challenge was premature as the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act had not been notified then. After the fresh challenge in 2015 after the acts were notified, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. SC declares NJAC unconstitutional 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. The judgement was hailed by lawyers Prashant Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani, who had appeared for the petitioners challenging NJAC, while other jurists, lawyers and activists such as KK Venugopal, KTS Tulsi and Jayaprakash Narayana opposed it. Support for NJAC 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.” Later developments 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). How the collegium can be made transparent The fixing of the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered suitable for appointment as a judge A process to receive and deal with complaints against judges without compromising on judicial independence Debate on whether a separate secretariat is required, and if so, its functioning, composition and powers 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. See also Three Judges Cases Basic structure doctrine Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Amendment of the Constitution of India All India Judicial Service: another proposed system of appointment to the judiciary References External links 99th