[Starts 1st April] 45 Days Super Intensive Prelims (SIP)

Click here to know all detailsSamanvaya, Samachar Manthan, Static subject coverage & Prelims Mock tests

Importance for Exams

Only from a mains perspective. Important to understand – MOP, Security Clause, RTI, JSA Bill.

The News

In October 2015, the SC bench in a majority of 4:1 rejected the NJAC Act and 99th Constitutional Amendment and Collegium was brought back in. The grounds stated were the following :
1. Primacy of the judiciary was not ensured which was mandatory for independence of Judiciary
2. Active role of executive was not desirable as the govt. was the litigant more than 60% of the times.
3. Other minor issues on eminent personality, etc.

FM Arun Jaitley criticized the ruling as “democracy becoming tyranny of the unelected”. To which former CJI Justice Lodha replied stating when the will of the people through elected representatives is opposed to the constitution, the judiciary ought to be governed by the latter.
Interestingly, one positive development out of this chaos has been judiciary’s acceptance of the flaws in the collegium system and its willingness to work with the executive to evolve it.

In this regard, the SC asked the Govt. to work on a revised MoP addressing the following issues of the Collegium –
1. Opaque working
2. Lack of objectivity
3. Lack of accountability
4. Missing broad-based consultations.

The revised MoP proposed the following
Nominations – Proposal is to setup a Technical Committee. This committee will accept nominations and hold wider consultations to select the best candidates.
Eligibility – a) The prime criteria will be Seniority along with b) Merit and integrity. In case a senior Chief Justice being overlooked for elevation   reasons for the same be recorded in writing.
Permanent Secretariat : maintaining records of high court judges, scheduling meetings of the SC Collegium, receiving recommendations as well as complaints in matters related to appointments, scrutinize data relating to prospective appointees, and lays down a judicial mechanism for redress of complaints against judges.

Points of contention
Most of the points mentioned above stand sorted except for the Security Clause.
Security Clause : The clause under which Govt will have powers to reject any candidate recommended by the collegium on grounds of public interest and national security. Revised draft proposes that the government will communicate to the collegium the reasons for rejecting any name recommended by it.



*Click here to read the previous developments*

Any doubts?

Govt. behind delay in posting of HC judges: SC


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Appointment procedure in judiciary

Mains level: Rising vacancies in High courts and SC and its consequences


Delay in appointment of judges

  1. SC said that the government is inordinately delaying the appointment of judges to High Courts
  2. Judicial vacancies in the 24 High Courts are at an all-time high

HCs also at fault

  1. Instead of sending the fresh names to the government for vetting a month prior to an anticipated judicial vacancy, the names are sent late or not sent at all
  2. In case the fresh names are sent to the government, the files are kept pending at the Executive level for long before they are sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for approval
  3. Even after the clearance of the names by the Collegium, these remain pending at the level of the Executive

Effect of delay

  1. Sometimes, it takes more than one year to complete the process from the date of forwarding the names till appointment
  2. As a result, the careers and tenures of future High Court judges recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium are invariably cut short

[op-ed snap] Judicial primacy is not the same as exclusivity


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: NJAC, Article 124 and Article 217

Mains level: NJAC and debates surrounding it


Recent events in the Supreme Court

  1. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) allegedly decides the roster the way he sees fit
  2. But the judges next to him in seniority are equally keen that it be done the conventional way
  3. A certain trust deficit exists within the fraternity of judges

Would NJAC Act have reduced such a possibility?

  1. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was conceived as a six-member body comprising, ex-officio, the CJI, the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and the Union minister of law
  2. In addition, there were to be two eminent persons who would be selected by a committee comprising the CJI, the prime minister of India, and the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha
  3. In the matter of the appointment of the Supreme Court and the high court judges, two members combined could exercise a veto power on a candidate
  4. In the proposed NJAC, the judiciary, with three members in a six-member committee, where a two-member coalition can exercise a veto, would have only 50% of the voting power

Judicial primacy Vs Exclusivity

  1. The ideal of judicial primacy as embodied in Articles 124 and Articles 217 of the Constitution has been lauded as a guarantor of judicial independence in appointments
  2. Primacy should imply that if the judges are united, the candidate they back must get appointed
  3. The ideal of judicial primacy need not be equivalent to the demand of judicial exclusivity
  4. Judicial exclusivity refers to the exclusive right of judges to be involved in the selection process as in the current system of the collegium

Does NJAC violate judicial primacy?

  1.  Taking into account the views and votes of entities outside the judiciary in the event the judges are disunited violates exclusivity but not primacy
  2. In the absence of exclusivity, it is possible for a candidate not preferred by the CJI to become a judge
  3. When consulted by the president, as required by the Constitution, the CJI would have to convey its support for a candidate not of its choice

Changes that can be made in proposed NJAC

  1. A five-member NJAC consisting of the CJI, two Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister, and one person of eminence chosen should be considered
  2. To preserve judicial primacy, it is best to do away with the veto altogether and allow any member to file a dissenting note
  3. This dissent can be shared for public consumption after a certain amount of time has elapsed

Way Forward

  1. B. R. Ambedkar had warned against the overweening influence of the executive in judicial appointments
  2. This does not imply that executive participation should be wholly absent
  3. The selection of the person of eminence must work on consensus to prevent the collusion of the political class
  4. In view of allegations of corruption in the judiciary, especially related to the alleged collusion between some judges and lawyers, the relaxation of judicial exclusivity in the manner proposed allows a certain degree of social oversight on judicial appointments

Indu Malhotra set to script history


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Appointments in Judiciary, Articles 124 and 217

Mains level: Gender gap existing in judiciary and its effect on judgments delivered


First woman advocate being directly promoted

  1. Senior advocate Indu Malhotra is set to make history as the first woman lawyer to be directly appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court
  2. Ms. Malhotra will be the seventh woman judge in the Supreme Court, since it was established 67 years ago, if her appointment goes through

Other achievements

  1. In 2007, she became the second woman to be designated a senior advocate by the Supreme Court only after the legendary Justice Leila Seth, who was given the honour in 1977
  2. She is on the board of trustees in SaveLIFE Foundation and represented the NGO in a case which resulted in the Supreme Court passing a slew of laws to protect Good Samaritans, who save lives in road accidents

Gender gap in SC

  1. There is only one woman judge at present in the Supreme Court which currently has a strength of 25 judges
  2. In 1989, Justice M. Fathima Beevi became the first woman judge in the Supreme Court
  3. Only five women judges have been appointed as Supreme Court judge till now


Appointments in Judiciary

  1. Appointments to the higher judiciary, governed by Articles 124 and 217, for the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively are in hands of the executive, or so it appears from a literal reading of the provisions
  2. In the early decades since the adoption of the Constitution, the appointments were made primarily by the executive after consultation with the judiciary as per the provisions of the Constitution
  3. The tectonic shift took place from 1981, where a 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared that the executive would hold primacy in judicial appointments (First Judges case)
  4. Judiciary regained primacy in appointment of Judges in 1998 (Third judges case)
  5. It was said that the Chief Justice of India, along with senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court would play a primary role in appointments to the judiciary (Collegium system)

[op-ed snap] Sink your differences: on the executive-judiciary relationship


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Seperation of powers, Memorandum of Procedure

Mains level: Judicial appointments and all issues related to it


The question whether the judiciary does not trust the Prime Minister to make fair judicial appointments

  1. Differences between the executive and the judiciary are emerging often in the public domain these days
  2. By harping on the need to maintain the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, representatives of the Union government have risked the impression that they are putting the judiciary on the defensive
  3. It is debatable whether these issues should have been raised in public

Questioning benefits of collegium system

  1. An audit is needed to determine what has been lost or gained since the collegium system was created in 1993
  2. The present collegium system is flawed and lacks transparency, and there is a clear need to have a better and more credible process in making judicial appointments

Rising issues

  1. Whether there is real separation of powers?
  2. Whether public interest litigation has become an interstitial space in which judges give policy directives?
  3. Whether the country needs a better system than the present one in which judges appoint judges?

CJI’s response

  1. Chief Justice responded that the judiciary reposes the same trust that the Constituent Assembly had in the Prime Minister
  2. The judiciary indeed recognised and respected the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution

Way forward

  1. It is clear that differences over formulating a fresh Memorandum of Procedure for appointments are casting a shadow on the relationship
  2. It is best if both sides take a pragmatic view of the situation and sink their differences on the new procedure, even if it involves giving up a point or two that they are clinging to


[op-ed snap] Collegium and transparency


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: NJAC(read the attached story)

Mains level: This is the first time when the SC’s recent judgement, on making public its various decision on appointments and transfers, got implemented.



  1. Tha article talks about the SC decision to make public, on the court’s website, its various decisions, including its verdicts on persons nominated for elevation as judges to the high courts, its choices of candidates for elevation to the Supreme Court, and its decisions on transfer of judges between different high courts

Some of the decisions given in the first publication

  1. In the cases of A. Zakir Hussain and Dr. K. Arul(candidates nominated for elevation to the Madras High Court) the collegium has said
    “keeping in view the material on record, including the report of Intelligence Bureau [IB] he is not found suitable for elevation to the HC Bench”
  2. The reasons offered for rebuffing the nomination of Vasudevan V.N., a judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, are particularly perplexing. The report said
    “While one of the two consultee-colleagues has offered no views about his suitability, the other colleague has not found him suitable for elevation”
  3. As per record, his name was also recommended by the Collegium of the Calcutta High Court on 28.11.2016 and the Government of West Bengal has expressed its disagreement
  4. Record placed before us also shows that the proposal for his elevation initiated on a previous occasion by the Collegium of the Bombay High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court Collegium on 1st August 2013

Issues related to Vasudevan VN

  1. The collegium, ever since its inception, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in what is known as the Second Judges Case (1993)
  2. The present revelations, much opposed to their perceived objective, scarcely make the system more transparent
  3. In Mr. Vasudevan’s case, for example, we don’t know which of the “consultee-judges objected to his elevation, and why the judge interviewed found him unsuitable
  4. Also the collegium’s express noting that Mr. Vasudevan had previously been recommended by two different high court collegia
  5. These issues concerning the system employed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts are of particular salience

What constitution says on the appointments High Court Judges?

  1. The President, who would act on the advice of the council of ministers is required to compulsorily consult certain authorities, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI)
  2. And when making appointments to a high court, the chief justice of that court

Interpretation of the word ‘Consultation’

  1. In 1977, in Sankalchand Sheth’s case, when interpreting the word “consultation,” the Supreme Court ruled that the term can never mean “concurrence”
  2. Hence, the CJI’s opinion, the court ruled, was not binding on the executive
  3. And in 1981, in the First Judges Case, the court once again endorsed this interpretation, partly
  4. But twelve years later, in the Second Judges Case, the court overruled its earlier decisions
  5. It now held that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”
  6. And that the CJI’s view enjoys primacy, since he is “best equipped to know and assess the worth” of candidates
  7. In 1998, in the Third Judges Case, the court clarified its position further
  8. The collegium, it said, will comprise, in the case of appointments to the SC, the CJI and his four senior-most colleagues
  9. And, in the case of appointments to the high courts, the CJI and his two senior-most colleagues

Collegium is a part of the basic structure of the constitution

  1. When the Constitution was altered, through the 99th constitutional amendment
  2. And when the collegium was sought to be replaced by the National Judicial Appointments Commission, the court swiftly struck it down
  3. It ruled, in what we might now call the Fourth Judges Case (2015), that the primacy of the collegium was a part of the Constitution’s basic structure
  4. And this power could not, therefore, be removed even through a constitutional amendment

SC questions Centre on judicial posts

Mains Paper2 | Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

The following things are important from UPSC perspective:

Prelims: MoP, Attorney General

Mains level: This article talks about the delay in the finalization of the MoP and in the appointment of the regular Chief Justices in the high courts. These are the hot topics for the mains and notes must be made out of this newscard via complementing it with the earlier newcards on the same issue.



  • Over a year and 10 months after a Constitution Bench placed its faith in the government to iron out the dos and don’ts of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the high courts, the Centre is yet to deliver.
  • Now, the court wants to know why.

Steps taken by the SC in regard to the delay in the finalization of the MoP

    1. SC issued notice to the Attorney General of India, the Centre’s top law officer, to explain why the finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts continues to linger.
  • The Supreme Court also wants the government to address it on the delay in appointment of “regular” Chief Justices to various high courts.
    1. The apex court underlined that the arrangement of Acting Chief Justices in high courts should not continue for more than a month.
  • Recently Acting Chief Justice was also appointed to Karnataka High Court, taking the tally of high courts with Acting Chief Justices to seven.
  1. The Bench posted the hearing for later in the November while appointing senior advocate K.V. Vishwanathan as amicus curiae.

The Delay

  • It recorded in a written order that it has been about two years since a five-judge Constitution Bench tasked the Centre with the drafting and finalisation of the MoP.
  1. The decision to give the job to the government was an aftermath of the same Constitution Bench’s historic decision to strike down the government’s National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) law.
  2. The NJAC law had given politicians an equal say in judicial appointments to constitutional courts.
  3. Even though no time limit was fixed by this Court for finalisation of the MoP, the issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.

The Petition

  1. The petition besides questioning the delay in the finalisation of MoP, also raised the issue of delay in the appointment of regular Chief Justices in high courts despite the recommendation of the Supreme Court.
  2. The bench observed that there was substance in submission about the undue delay in the appointment of regular Chief Justices in high courts.
  3. The court noted that the process of appointment should start well in advance to prevent piling up of vacancies.
  4. Judicial vacancies continue to be a formidable problem across the 24 high courts. Out of an approved total strength of 1079 high court judges, there are 387 vacancies as of October 1, 2017.
  5. Referring to the contempt proceedings against former Madras High Court judge, the Bench referred to the judgment in the case that had suggested re-visiting the judicial appointments process and the need for an alternative to impeachment of an erring judge.



[op-ed snap] The gown and the Bench

Image Source


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Not much

Mains level: Important step taken by the SC to counter strong criticism from the Law community. It will help in raising transparency level in Judicial System. Complement this newscard with our previous newscard on an another development of the same kind, click here. Both of the newscard shows rising transparency level in our judicial system.



  1. The article talks about a new permanent committee and guidelines for designating lawyers in the SC and HC as senior advocates

New guidelines by the SC

  1. The SC has laid down guidelines for designating lawyers in the SC and HC as senior advocates
  2. Now, applications will be examined by a permanent committee known as the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates
  3. The committee will publish the names of candidates on the respective courts’ websites to ensure transparency
  4. Current system: Until now, the judges of the SC and HC had the sole discretion of according this status to advocates

Origin of collegium system

  1. Political interference in the selection of judges in the third and fourth decades of independent India resulted in the collegium system where judges select judges

The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014

  1. The opaque system and unsatisfactory selection, transfer, and elevation of judges to the SC caused disquiet and led to the passing of the acts
  2. The acts sought to give politicians and civil society a final say in the appointment of judges to the highest courts
  3. In 2015, a Constitution Bench of the SC declared these unconstitutional on the ground that the composition of the NJAC did not provide adequate representation to those from the judiciary
  4. It is in this context that one has to welcome the permanent committee

Composition of the permanent committee

  1. It will consist of the
    (1) Chief Justice of India,
    (2) two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court/ High Courts,
    (3) the Attorney General of India/ the Advocate General of State, and
    (4) a member of the Bar to be nominated by the above four members
  2. The committee will have a permanent secretariat
  3. All applications for designation of senior advocate will be submitted to the secretariat
  4. The secretariat will compile all the relevant information with regard to the reputation, conduct, integrity, participation in pro-bono work, reported judgments in which the advocate has appeared, etc. of the candidates
  5. The committee will examine each candidate’s case, interview the candidate, and make its assessment based on a point-based format

Some related concerns

  1. There may be some reservation on the aspect of publishing names on the official website of the court and inviting suggestions as in the recent past
  2. There have been reports of motivated complaints and objections
  3. The secretariat should not be dragged into the jumble of investigating frivolous complaints or objections

The way forward

  1. This institutional mechanism and selection criteria seem suited to substitute the existing collegium system
  2. The executive and the legislature could also seriously consider introducing a new version of the NJAC which incorporates the salient features of this institutional mechanism
  3. The sooner the judiciary adopts such a mechanism for judges too, the better it is for the institution

[op-ed snap] Open court: In judicial appointments and transfers, justice will now be seen to be done

Image source


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Collegium system, Memorandum of Procedure, National Judicial Appointments Commission

Mains level: Transparency initiative taken by SC & various HC’s and its ramifications on overall Indian Polity i.e judiciary, legislature and executive


Judiciary moves towards more transparency

  1. The Supreme Court has begun to upload the decisions of the collegium in the elevation, confirmation, and transfer of judges, and the reasoning behind them, at the time that its recommendations are forwarded to the government
  2.  This initiates transparency in a contested process when the judiciary and the executive have been at loggerheads over the Memorandum of Procedure
  3. In a 2015 judgment rejecting the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission, the Supreme Court recommended improving the transparency of the collegium system

Consent of judges necessary in transfers

  1. A 1993 judgment makes it clear that consent for transfer should be taken “unless there exist pressing circumstances making it unavoidable”
  2. In addition, the circumstances must be in “public interest”

Current status: Criticism and justification

  1. The collegium’s recommendations for appointments to the Kerala and Madras High Courts are already on record and detail the process by which candidates were vetted
  2. The criticism has been made that the details were uploaded after the collegium took the decision, and the recommendations were on their way to the government
  3. Justification: If the collegium were to publish details prior to the decision, it would impugn the objective of confidentiality, which its resolution specifies
  4. The transparency delivered by the system is enough to prevent appointments that are clearly ill-advised

Now, SC Collegium to make judges’ appointments transparent


Mains Paper 2: Polity | Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Read the B2B.

Mains level: Important step taken by the SC to counter strong criticism from the Law community and people. It will help in raising transparency level in Judicial System.


SC’s move to ensure transparency

  1. According to the SC’s decisions, recommendations on judicial appointments, elevations and transfers will be posted on the court website
  2. As a start, the Supreme Court has posted online detailed reasons for its October 3, 2017 recommendations for judicial appointments to the Madras HC and the Kerala HC
  3. Details are now available online under the tag “Collegium Resolutions”

How will it ensure transparency?

  1. The information posted online will “indicate” reasons for the recommendation or rejection of a name for judicial appointment, transfer and elevation to HCs and the SC


  1. Collegium system was being critcised for its opaque mode of functioning while recommending judicial appointments
  2. Recently, a controversy came after the public uproar over the resignation of Karnataka HC judge shortly after his transfer to the Allahabad HC
  3. The mode of functioning of the Collegium had seen criticism, for the first time, from within the Collegium itself in the form of Justice Chelameswar

Why are some judges against this decision?

  1. Proposal to upload the Collegium recommendations indicating reasons had to face strong objections from within the judicial community itself
  2. One of the objections include that posting such information online would cause judicial candidates acute embarrassment and loss of face in case of rejection of their names by the Collegium


To know more about the issue, Click here

Judiciary failed to fill 4,937 vacancies in lower courts: Centre

  1. Event: CJI T.S. Thakur yet again accused the government of delay in filling the 442 judicial vacancies in the HCs
  2. Govt response: Asking reasons for judiciary’s “lapse” in appointing judges to the district and subordinate courts, which need 10 times more judges
  3. The total sanctioned strength of judicial officers in district and subordinate courts is 21,320 as on June 30, 2016
  4. Of these, 16,383 have been filled, leaving 4,937 vacancies
  5. Data show that a trial court takes anything between 94 and 822 days to dispose of criminal matters. A sessions case takes an average of one year and two months

Importance: The SC often blames the govt for delays in appointments. This news indicates that there are delays due to the judiciary also.

SC Collegium refuses to accept govt.’s rejection of 43 names for HC judges

  1. What: The SC Collegium has refused to accept the govt’s rejection of 43 names of the 77 it had hand-picked for judicial appointments in HCs
  2. The SC informed the govt that it had reiterated every one of the 43 names that was sent back by the Centre to the Collegium for re-consideration
  3. Prevalent procedure: If the Collegium reiterates the names sent back to them, the govt is bound to accept them and clear them for appointment as judges
  4. The govt had sent back the names after CJI Thakur told the Centre to send back names in case of any difference of opinion rather than keep the entire process of judicial appointments hanging

Approved strength of judges enough to end backlog: Law panel head

  1. Context: The ongoing Judicial appointments issue in the country
  2. Law Commission of India Chairman and former Supreme Court judge Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan said working judges, and not increasing sanctioned strength of judges, may be a solution to modern-day demands of judicial workload
  3. The workload is caused by the heightened legal awareness among the public about their liberties
  4. Steps should be taken to fill the sanctioned strength rather than increase the number of judges over and above the current sanctioned strength to solve pendency
  5. It’s a completely different view from the highest judiciary’s call for more judges to trim pendency
  6. Background: His view comes at a time when SC has directed the Law Commission to file a report within a year on whether it is permissible to rid the apex court of routine appeals crowding the court, to help it focus on cases of national and public interest
  7. Also at a time when CJI Thakur has called for over 70,000 more judges to be appointed to courts all over the country to clear the backlog

SC to hear plea for independent judicial appointments commission

  1. Petition: Seeks the formation of a public, transparent body, neither controlled by the government nor the judiciary, for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts of the country
  2. It will have a role for public
  3. Why? To secure a selection from a diverse and wider pool of candidates & bring an end to the patronage and influence of the so-called legal luminaries
  4. Petition By: The National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms
  5. Context: The ongoing Judicial appointment conundrum in the country

My fight is for transparency, says Justice Chelameswar

  1. Context: His decision to skip the meetings of the Supreme Court Collegium till the highest judiciary ushers in transparency
  2. Why? Solely for the cause of transparency and was not fighting for any personal gain
  3. Justice Chelameshwar: The judiciary should evolve a procedure for bringing in transparency in appointments after having rejected both the government’s arguments and rescinded a parliamentary law on NJAC
  4. His dissent is as historic as it is revealing of the Collegium’s opacity

Didn’t stall judicial appointments: Govt

  1. NJAC: For almost a year-and-a-half, the entire appointments process went into a deep freeze mode and vacancies piled up as litigation challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) laws dragged on in the Supreme Court
  2. Memorandum of Procedure: The MoP has never delayed the judicial appointments process as has been proved by statistics
  3. Stats: 52 judicial appointments to various High Courts have already been made till date & 10 additional High Court judges have been confirmed
  4. Also, 4 Supreme Court judges have been appointed and nine High Court Chief Justices have been confirmed

Centre accepts some suggestions of collegium- II

  1. Criteria: While the Govt had earlier proposed merit-cum-seniority as the criterion for elevation of judges, only seniority is now being considered to be the main condition
  2. Unchanged: The clause under which Govt will have powers to reject any candidate recommended by the collegium on grounds of public interest and national security
  3. Revised draft proposes that the government will communicate to the collegium the reasons for rejecting any name recommended by it

Centre accepts some suggestions of collegium- I

  1. News: The Central government has accepted some recommendations of the Supreme Court collegium on draft memorandum of procedures for appointment of judges
  2. However, it reinforced its views regarding certain other key clauses on which the collegium had earlier raised objections
  3. Jurists: Govt accepted To lift the proposed cap on the number of jurists and lawyers for appointment as judges in the Supreme Court
  4. Background: The draft sent to the Chief Justice of India in March had recommended that up to three judges from among jurists and lawyers could be appointed.

No panel to address complaints against judges, clarifies govt

  1. News: Govt has said consideration of complaints against sitting judges will continue to be a strictly in-house process within the judiciary
  2. Context: There were speculations that the Centre has proposed a secretariat of retired judges to deal with complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts
  3. Background: The government returned a draft of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to the Collegium for its consideration on August 3
  4. It was a part of the consultative process underway to finalise ways to make the collegium system of judicial appointments accountable and transparent

Supreme Court pulls up Centre for sitting on Collegium list

  1. News: In its sharpest-ever attack in open court on the Govt, SC asked whether the Centre intends to bring the entire judiciary to a grinding halt by sitting on recommendations of the Collegium for appointment and transfer of judges to High Courts across the country
  2. Confrontation ahead? Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur made it clear to the Centre that the court would not shy away from a confrontation with the government if driven to a corner
  3. Judicial intervention: If matters continued in the same vein, the court would be forced to intervene judicially and call for every file of every recommendation forwarded by the Collegium to the government for clearance
  4. Context: SC was hearing a PIL highlighting the enormous backlog of cases in various courts which has acquired uncontrollable proportions
  5. Background: Chief Justice had made an emotional appeal in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra about the rising burden of judges due to vacancies and pendency

Collegium reiterates objections to draft memo

  1. News: The Supreme Court collegium has reiterated its rejection of several crucial clauses in the government’s draft Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges
  2. Context: The relations between judiciary and government has been sour over a clause in the MoP on appointment of judges
  3. Collegium: Opposed to how the government wants merit to be the overriding concern and not seniority, as is the norm, of judges during appointment and elevation
  4. Proposed that both merit and seniority should be balanced
  5. Collegium is also upset about the government’s authority to reject a judicial candidate citing national security reasons despite their recommendations

Judiciary vs government – background

  1. Ever since the Supreme Court (SC) struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, the relations between judiciary and government has been sour
  2. As a compromise it was agreed that the government would draft a revised Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), intended for appointment of judges
  3. However, a clause in the revised draft MoP empowering the government to reject the names suggested by the SC Collegium was not acceptable to the judges
  4. The clause on the right to reject a recommendation on grounds of national security gives primacy to the government on appointment of judges
  5. Earlier practice: Government was bound to accept a recommendation by the Collegium (4 senior-most judges of the SC and the CJI) if a recommendation is sent again
  6. The revised MoP further provides that once the Centre has rejected a recommendation it will not be bound to reconsider it even after reiteration by the collegiums

Nearly half of High Court judges posts vacant

  1. News: The number of vacancies of High Court judges has grown to 470 out of the sanctioned strength of 1079, representing 45% vacancy
  2. Reason: Clause in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) that gives the government the right to reject names suggested by the Supreme Court Collegium system
  3. Context: Continuing tussle between the government and the judiciary over a clause in the MoP on appointment of judges

Chief Justice of India again calls for augmenting judges’ strength

  1. Context: CJI concerns about the paucity of judges in the country
  2. CJI: Access to justice is the fundamental right of people and Govt couldn’t deny it
  3. Also expressed his worry about Govt’s inaction on improvement of judges population
  4. Earlier: Raised the problem of ‘shortage of judges’ in the presence of PM at a conference in New Delhi
  5. There are 450 vacancies of judges

Background to the MoP for appointments

  1. In December 2015, a Constitution Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar, after restoring the collegium system, had directed the Centre to frame a new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP)
  2. The Bench had directed the govt to do this in consultation with the CJI
  3. CJI would in turn take into confidence his four seniormost puisne judges of the SC and who are part of the collegium
  4. Legacy: MoP for appointment of judges to the SC & HC have always been prepared by the executive in consultation with the President and the CJI
  5. This is in consonance with the judgments of the Second Judges and Third Judges cases which ushered in and fine-tuned the collegium system

Govt. bound to comply

  1. Context: The Supreme Court has sent back the draft Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to the govt
  2. Presently: Govt is bound to comply if the SC collegium chooses to override its disapproval of a person recommended for judicial appointment
  3. If the government returns the candidate’s file to the collegium, and the latter reiterates its recommendation, the government has no choice but to comply

SC sends back draft on judges’ appointment

  1. What? The Supreme Court has sent back the draft Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to the Govt
  2. Why? For re-consideration of certain objectionable clauses in it
  3. Clauses: Role of the Attorney-General of India in the appointment of Supreme Court judges and Advocates-General in the appointment process of High Court judges
  4. Also a clause giving the govt the right to reject the collegium’s recommendation

CJI slams government for stalling judicial appointments

  1. Context: Chief Justice of India criticised government inaction
  2. Criticism: Salling appointment of judges to the High Courts and doing nothing to increase the number of courts and judges
  3. CJI: What is the point of ‘Make in India’ and inviting FDI when investors would worry about timely delivery of justice
  4. Judicial appointments remained in limbo because of the prolonged litigation over National Judicial Appointments Commission laws

Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill

  1. It provided for a comprehensive mechanism for handling complaints made by citizens
  2. Complaints can be grounds of alleged misbehaviour and incapacity against judges of the Supreme Court and high courts
  3. Provided for a mechanism to take action against those found guilty after investigation
  4. Laid down judicial standards and made it incumbent on the judges to declare their assets and liabilities

Bill to monitor complaints against judges

  1. The government favours bringing afresh The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill
  2. It seeks to change the present system of probing complaints of “misbehaviour and incapacity” against judges of the Supreme Court and high courts
  3. The bill was earlier brought by UPA government but had lapsed following the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha

There will be no wholesome change in Collegium system, says SC

To focus on transparency, eligibility criteria, secretariat of Collegium, complaint redressal mechanism.

  1. Constitution Bench led by Justice J S Khehar was categorical in making it known to the government that although it had invited suggestions to improve the system.
  2. It is not going to be a wholesome change. It has to be within the parameters (evolved by nine judges in 1990s).
  3. SC would address four specific issues, transparency, eligibility criteria for appointments, setting up a secretariat of Collegium and a complaint redressal mechanism.
  4. Government sought a role for the President and the PM in the appointment process, saying nominations for appointment as a SC judge may also be made by them.

Could bringing the present collegium system under RTI strengthen it?

The extent of disclosure and effective working of the model is likely to be heard and decided by the five-judge bench starting 3 November

Photo: Mint

  1. Suggestions comes out that the judicial administration should be brought under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005, to ensure transparency in the judicial system.
  2. Though the NJAC has been held as unconstitutional as a whole, the judiciary has not failed to acknowledge flaws in the prevailing collegium system.
  3. By opaque nature of the collegium system, the first step anticipated in making the system transparent would be to bring it under the ambit of the RTI Act.
  4. Bringing RTI of collegium into effect would ensure that reasons for non appointment are recorded leading to fair appointments.

This move would ensure that information pertaining to appointment of a particular candidate to the higher judiciary is available to everybody, Isn’t it?


:( We are working on most probable questions. Do check back this section.

Highest Rated App. Over 3 lakh users. Click to Download!!!