The correct option is Neither 1 nor 2.
Explanation
The appointment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is governed by Article 124 of the Constitution. While the Constitution empowers the President to appoint judges, the specific procedure regarding the seniority norm has evolved through conventions and judicial pronouncements, particularly the 'Three Judges Cases'.
Statement-wise Analysis:
- Statement 1 is Incorrect. The Constitution of India does not explicitly mandate that the senior-most judge must be appointed as the CJI. Article 124 merely states that the President shall appoint judges after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary. The rule of seniority is a convention that was given legal sanction by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), which ruled that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court alone should be appointed to the office of the CJI.
- Statement 2 is Incorrect. The convention of seniority was not strictly followed without exception until 2014. It was notably violated on two occasions in the 1970s:
- In 1973, Justice A.N. Ray was appointed as CJI, superseding three senior judges (J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, and A.N. Grover).
- In 1977, Justice M.U. Beg was appointed as CJI, superseding the then senior-most judge, Justice H.R. Khanna.
Key Takeaway:
The requirement to appoint the senior-most judge as the CJI is based on established convention and the ruling in the Second Judges Case (1993), not explicit Constitutional text. This convention was historically breached in 1973 and 1977.