Explanation
The correct option is Purely consultative.
The procedure for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is governed by Article 124 of the Constitution. The interpretation of the term "consultation" in this article has evolved through three landmark Supreme Court judgments, collectively known as the "Three Judges Cases."
Detailed Analysis:
- First Judges Case (1982) - S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that "consultation" does not mean "concurrence." It ruled that the term implies only an exchange of views. Consequently, the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) advice was interpreted as purely consultative and not binding on the President. This interpretation established the primacy of the Executive in judicial appointments, which prevailed until 1993.
- Second Judges Case (1993) - Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India: The Court overruled its 1982 verdict, holding that "consultation" implies "concurrence." It declared that the advice tendered by the CJI is binding on the President. This judgment introduced the Collegium system.
- Third Judges Case (1998): The Court clarified the consultation process, expanding the Collegium to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
Since the question refers to the interpretation established in 1982 (which defined the legal position for the majority of the period until 1993), the role was interpreted as purely consultative.
Key Takeaway:
First Judges Case (1982) established that the CJI's role was consultative (Executive Primacy). Second Judges Case (1993) established that the CJI's advice is binding (Judicial Primacy/Collegium System).