💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2-09.Appointment to various Constitutional posts; Constitutional Bodies(powers, functions and responsibilities); Statutory, Regulatory and Quasi-judicial bodies

  • Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 creates National Tribunals Commission after a decade-long tussle with the Supreme Court

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which creates a National Tribunals Commission, fixes member tenure at five years and repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021. The measure ends a decade in which the Centre re-enacted provisions the Supreme Court had struck down, most recently in November 2025 when a Bench called the 2021 re-enactment an impermissible legislative override. It concedes the institution the Court had demanded while retaining the appointment, funding and rule making levers that produced the dispute.

    What is the National Tribunals Commission?

    1. An independent oversight body for tribunals: The National Tribunals Commission is created to sever the dependence of tribunals on their parent government ministries for administrative and financial needs.
    2. Composition: It will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court, with two judicial members and two technical members.
    3. Qualification for technical members: Technical members must have at least 25 years of experience in fields such as public administration, finance or law.
    4. Core functions: The Commission will conduct the selection process for vacancies, review the performance of tribunals and oversee inquiries into complaints against members.
    5. Data function: It will maintain a National Tribunals Data Grid.
    6. Executive appointment retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members, with the chairperson and judicial members appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

    What is the National Tribunals Data Grid?

    1. A central case data repository: The National Tribunals Data Grid is the consolidated database of tribunal case and disposal data to be maintained by the Commission.
    2. Purpose: It supplies the performance data on which the Commission’s review of tribunal functioning will rest, mirroring the role the National Judicial Data Grid performs for courts.

    What is an impermissible legislative override?

    1. Re-enacting a struck down provision: A legislative override is impermissible when a legislature re-enacts the same provision a court has declared unconstitutional, without removing the defect the court identified.
    2. The settled distinction: A legislature may cure the basis of a judgment by changing the underlying law, but it cannot simply nullify the judgment by restoring the identical text.

    Why did the Centre and the Supreme Court end up in a decade long confrontation?

    1. Finance Act, 2017: The statute empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals, transferring service conditions and qualifications to executive rule making.
    2. Constitution Bench ruling, 2019: A Constitution Bench struck down those rules for undermining judicial independence.
    3. New rules and a judicial recommendation, 2020: The Centre notified fresh rules, and the Court recommended several modifications, including a five year tenure for members.
    4. Ordinance, April 2021: Instead of incorporating those suggestions, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance fixing tenure at four years, setting a minimum appointment age of 50, and requiring selection committees to recommend a panel of two names.
    5. Provisions struck down as arbitrary: The Court struck down those provisions.
    6. Tribunals Reforms Act, August 2021: Parliament then passed an Act re-enacting the exact provisions the Court had just declared unconstitutional.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in November 2025?

    1. Re-enactment condemned: A two judge Bench struck down provisions of the 2021 Act, calling the re-enactment an impermissible legislative override of earlier judgments.
    2. Criticism of persistent non compliance: The Court criticised the government for its persistent refusal to adhere to its pronouncements.
    3. Four year tenure held anti merit: The Court ruled that a short four year tenure is anti-merit and increases interference by the executive, jeopardising the independence of the judiciary.
    4. Panel of two names rejected: It held that the government could not demand a panel of two names, since this gave the executive undue discretion in appointments.
    5. Direction to create the Commission: It reiterated the need for a National Tribunals Commission and directed the Centre to establish one within four months.
    6. Transitional protection: It protected certain existing appointments and selections while the new framework was being put in place.

    What are the other major changes proposed?

    1. Repeal of the 2021 Act (change to an existing provision): The 2026 Bill repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021 in its entirety.
    2. Tenure fixed at five years (change to an existing provision): Chairpersons and members will hold office for a term of five years, replacing the contested four year tenure.
    3. Age ceilings specified (change to an existing provision): The maximum age limit is set at 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members.
    4. Reappointment permitted (new provision): Chairpersons and members can be considered for reappointment.
    5. Search cum selection committee restructured (new provision): The committee for members will be headed by a judicial member of the Commission and will include a retired High Court judge, a government secretary, a technical member and experts.
    6. One name per vacancy (change to an existing provision): The committee will recommend one suitable candidate for each vacancy, with one additional name kept on a waiting list, replacing the panel of two.
    7. Appointment deadline imposed (new provision): The government must make the appointment within three months of receiving the recommendation.
    8. Stated legislative intent: The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Bill is introduced in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court, to improve efficiency and ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in the functioning of tribunals.

    Why does the Bill not fully sever executive control?

    1. Appointment power retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members of the Commission itself, so the body meant to insulate tribunals is constituted by the executive.
    2. Consultation is not concurrence: The chairperson and judicial members are appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India, a formulation that does not bind the government to the advice.
    3. Secretariat under the Centre: The Centre appoints the Commission’s secretary, which places the administrative machinery of the oversight body within executive reach.
    4. Financial dependence continues: The Centre provides grants to the Commission, reproducing at one remove the funding dependence the Court objected to.
    5. Rule making powers preserved: The Centre retains rule making powers over several aspects of tribunal members’ qualifications and service conditions.
    6. Reappointment as a pressure point: Permitting reappointment gives the appointing authority a continuing hold over a serving member’s prospects.

    Challenges to the National Tribunals Commission

    1. Vacancies outlast reform statutes: Tribunal benches sit without presiding officers for long periods, e.g. the National Green Tribunal has functioned with single member or non functional zonal benches for extended stretches.
    2. Parent ministry conflict of interest persists in adjudication: A tribunal often decides cases against the very ministry that shapes its service rules, e.g. the Armed Forces Tribunal adjudicates disputes against the Ministry of Defence.
    3. Appeal architecture keeps burdening the Supreme Court: Several statutes provide a direct appeal from a tribunal to the Supreme Court, e.g. appeals from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal go straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.
    4. Technical member dominance dilutes judicial character: Benches weighted toward administrative expertise weaken the adjudicatory function, e.g. the Court in the Madras Bar Association line of cases repeatedly objected to bench composition tilted against judicial members.
    5. Uneven infrastructure and geographic access: Litigants travel long distances because benches are concentrated in a few cities, e.g. the abolition of appellate bodies in the 2021 rationalisation pushed those appeals to High Courts already carrying large backlogs.
    6. Rationalisation without capacity transfer: Abolishing a tribunal shifts its docket to courts without a matching increase in judicial strength, e.g. the 2021 rationalisation abolished nine appellate tribunals including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and moved their work to High Courts.
    7. Non compliance with judicial directions: The record of the last decade shows directions being met with re-enactment rather than implementation, e.g. the 2021 Act reproduced the very four year tenure the Court had struck down months earlier.

    Conclusion

    A decade of contest between the legislature and the Court has ended with the Centre conceding the institution, since the Bill creates the National Tribunals Commission the Court had demanded and restores the five year tenure the Court recommended in 2020. The concession stops short of independence, because the Centre still appoints the Commission’s chairperson, members and secretary, funds it through grants and retains rule making powers over qualifications and service conditions. The measure has reached the stage of passage by both Houses of Parliament as the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, and awaits Presidential assent and notification before it can take effect. The next milestone named in the record is the constitution of the National Tribunals Commission, which the Supreme Court’s November 2025 judgment directed the Centre to complete within four months.

  • Legal aid defence needs reform, not retreat

    Why in the News

    The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) directed that contracts of Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) engaged by legal services institutions across India not be renewed, following representations from Bar Associations in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. The Bar’s claim is that a salaried public defence cadre is displacing private criminal practice, while the caseload data shows LADCs handling about 1.6 per cent of criminal cases instituted in a year. A scheme created by a statutory body is therefore being wound down without any national assessment of what it achieved.

    What is the Legal Aid Defence Counsel system?

    1. About: The LADC system is India’s experiment with a full time public defender office, staffed by salaried lawyers engaged by legal services institutions to defend accused persons who cannot afford a private lawyer.
    2. Purpose: It provides quality legal representation in criminal cases at every stage, from first production and remand through bail, trial and appeal.
    3. Structure: Each district office is headed by a Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel supported by deputy and assistant counsel who work only on legal aid matters.
    4. Difference in accountability: Counsel work under institutional oversight with fixed remuneration, monitoring and case reporting rather than as empanelled private practitioners paid per case.
    5. Coverage in the last cycle: The NALSA dashboard records 4,86,354 cases assigned to LADCs in the 2025 to 2026 year, including 1,88,878 bail cases.

    What is the National Legal Services Authority?

    1. About: NALSA is the apex statutory body constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide free legal services to eligible persons and to organise Lok Adalats.
    2. Structure: It works through State Legal Services Authorities, District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Committees, and it frames the schemes those bodies implement.

    What is the National Judicial Data Grid?

    1. About: The National Judicial Data Grid is the public database of pending and disposed cases across district and High Courts, updated from court software in near real time.
    2. Use here: It supplies the denominator of criminal cases instituted, against which the legal aid caseload is measured.

    What do the Bar Associations argue against the scheme?

    1. Parallel criminal bar: Bar Associations argue that a salaried defence cadre creates a parallel criminal bar inside the court system.
    2. Independence of the profession: They argue that lawyers paid and supervised by a state funded institution weaken the independence of the legal profession.
    3. Livelihood of practitioners: They argue that the scheme takes away work from advocates who depend on criminal briefs at the district level.
    4. Where the representations came from: The direction followed representations from Bar Associations in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh.
    5. The institutional response: NALSA acted on those representations by directing non renewal of LADC contracts across India, not only in the States from which the objection came.

    What do the caseload figures show about displacement?

    1. Cases assigned to LADCs: 4,86,354 cases were assigned in the 2025 to 2026 year as recorded on the NALSA dashboard.
    2. Bail work within that: 1,88,878 of those were bail cases, the stage at which delay translates directly into custody.
    3. Monthly institution of criminal cases: The National Judicial Data Grid records 24,68,339 criminal cases instituted in a single month.
    4. Annual criminal caseload: That translates to roughly 2.96 crore criminal cases instituted in a year.
    5. The resulting share: The 4.86 lakh cases assigned to LADCs represent approximately 1.6 per cent of criminal cases instituted.
    6. What the ratio establishes: A cadre handling one case in sixty cannot be the cause of a livelihood crisis in criminal practice.

    How does the LADC model differ from the assigned counsel system?

    1. Assigned counsel model: Private lawyers are empanelled and paid per case by the legal services institution to appear for indigent accused.
    2. Recorded weaknesses of that model: It has been criticised for missed hearings, delayed applications and complaints over the fees paid by the state.
    3. Why LADCs became popular: Many LADCs appear promptly at production and remand hearings, which is where an unrepresented accused is most exposed.
    4. Quality of filings: LADCs file appropriate and timely petitions challenging violations of procedural law and protecting the client’s rights.
    5. The reframing: Treating a more competent legal aid service as a threat to private practice converts an opportunity to raise professional standards into a demand to remove the comparison.
    6. What the Bar could take from it: The diligence that made LADCs effective is a benchmark for the assigned counsel system rather than a case against it.

    Why does the interim arrangement worry criminal justice practitioners?

    1. What replaces the cadre: Legal aid matters revert to young and relatively inexperienced lawyers assigned through the empanelment route.
    2. What criminal defence actually requires: Case preparation, cross examination, bail and remand advocacy, trial strategy and navigation of the criminal justice system.
    3. Where inexperience costs most: Bail and remand decisions are taken in minutes and determine months of custody, and 1,88,878 of the assigned cases were bail matters.
    4. Who bears the risk: Persons unable to afford private lawyers become the group on whom an untested arrangement is tried.
    5. Effect on pending matters: Ongoing cases change hands mid trial, breaking continuity of representation at the stage where evidence is being recorded.

    Whose interest should prevail when the livelihood of the Bar meets the fair trial right of the accused?

    1. Two genuine claims: Advocates have a legitimate interest in the volume and value of criminal briefs, and the accused has an enforceable constitutional right to competent representation.
    2. Asymmetry of voice: Bar Associations are organised and can make representations to a statutory authority, while indigent accused persons have no comparable channel.
    3. Asymmetry of consequence: A lawyer loses a share of a brief pool, an accused person loses liberty pending trial.
    4. The constitutional tilt: Article 39A and Article 21 place free and competent legal aid as a duty of the State, not as a welfare option to be balanced against professional interest.
    5. What the numbers settle: At 1.6 per cent of criminal institutions, the displacement claim is not supported by the caseload, so the two claims do not actually collide.
    6. What remains unresolved: Even a scheme that survives this objection needs a fair remuneration structure for the wider Bar, which the debate has not addressed.

    Why is the absence of any national assessment the central failure?

    1. No evaluation exists: There has been no national assessment of the LADC system since it was introduced.
    2. What an assessment would measure: Bail success rates, timeliness of appearance, conviction and acquittal patterns and client feedback against the assigned counsel baseline.
    3. The procedural objection: A scheme duly adopted and implemented by a statutory body is being stalled without an evaluation of its impact on ongoing cases.
    4. Evidence displaced by representation: The decision rests on submissions from professional associations rather than on outcome data from the scheme itself.
    5. The correct response to a working model: Where dedicated lawyers, institutional oversight and accountability improve defence quality, the response is to learn from the model rather than dismantle it.

    Challenges to the Legal Aid Defence Counsel system

    1. Contractual insecurity of counsel: Engagement on renewable contracts leaves the cadre vulnerable to a single administrative direction. e.g. the present non renewal order ends the engagement of counsel across India at once.
    2. Remuneration and parity: Salaries have to compete with private practice to retain experienced criminal lawyers. e.g. senior criminal advocates in metropolitan district courts earn multiples of the fixed LADC remuneration.
    3. Case overload per counsel: A small cadre carrying nearly five lakh cases limits time per client. e.g. 1,88,878 bail matters in a year across district offices leaves minutes of preparation for each.
    4. Resistance from the organised Bar: Institutional hostility can block access to court infrastructure and listings. e.g. Bar Associations in four northern States and Union Territories triggered the present direction.
    5. Uneven coverage across districts: The model has not been staffed uniformly, so quality of aid depends on the district. e.g. legal aid uptake remains far weaker in districts without a functioning prison legal aid clinic.
    6. Absence of outcome monitoring: Without published performance data the scheme cannot defend itself. e.g. no national assessment of the LADC system exists even after the scheme completed multiple years.
    7. Awareness deficit among the accused: Many undertrials do not know that free representation is available at remand. e.g. undertrials form about three quarters of India’s prison population, and a large share remain unrepresented at first production.

    Conclusion

    The case against the LADC system rests on a displacement claim that the caseload data does not support, since the cadre handled about 1.6 per cent of criminal cases instituted in a year. The decision to stop renewals was taken on professional representations without any national assessment of what the scheme delivered on bail, timeliness or trial quality. The immediate cost falls on indigent accused persons whose matters revert to inexperienced assigned counsel in the middle of ongoing trials. Reform of remuneration, cadre structure and Bar relations is the answer that the evidence supports, and withdrawal is not.

    What is Free Legal Aid?

    1. About: Free legal aid is the provision of legal services at state expense to persons who cannot afford them, so that access to justice does not depend on ability to pay.
    2. Rationale: An adversarial system delivers a fair result only where both sides are competently represented, and the criminal process places the individual against the resources of the State.
    3. Constitutional basis: Article 39A directs the State to secure equal justice and free legal aid, and the Supreme Court has read it into the fair procedure guarantee of Article 21.
    4. Who is eligible: Women, children, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, victims of trafficking, persons with disabilities, industrial workmen, persons in custody and those below the prescribed income ceiling.
    5. Delivery structures: Legal aid is delivered through panel advocates, retainer lawyers, front office and legal aid clinics, Lok Adalats and the Legal Aid Defence Counsel system.

    Key Concerns Regarding Free Legal Aid

    1. Quality over availability: The system counts lawyers assigned rather than outcomes achieved, so representation can be nominal.
    2. Late entry into the case: Aid frequently begins after remand, when the most consequential decision on liberty has already been taken.
    3. Low remuneration for panel lawyers: Fees paid per case are modest and delayed, which affects the seniority of lawyers willing to take the work.
    4. Weak monitoring: Legal services institutions have limited capacity to audit the quality of representation their panels provide.
    5. Awareness gap: Eligible persons, especially undertrials and rural litigants, often do not know the entitlement exists.
    6. Fragmented data: Case level outcome data across States is not published in a comparable form, which prevents evaluation of any model.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Free Legal Aid

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, the basis for equal access to the courts.
    2. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty through fair procedure, read to include the right to free legal aid for an indigent accused.
    3. Article 22(1): Guarantees the right of an arrested person to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice.
    4. Article 39A: Directs the State to secure equal justice and to provide free legal aid through suitable legislation or schemes.
    5. Article 32 and Article 226: Provide the remedies through which denial of competent representation is challenged.
    6. Article 38: Directs the State to promote a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, informs all institutions.

    Laws and Rules Governing Legal Aid in India

    1. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Constitutes NALSA, State and District Legal Services Authorities and provides for free legal services and Lok Adalats.
    2. Landmark provision under the 1987 Act: Section 12 lists the categories entitled to legal services as of right, irrespective of income in specified cases.
    3. Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002: Created Permanent Lok Adalats for pre litigation conciliation in public utility services.
    4. NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010: Prescribe empanelment standards, monitoring committees and the duty to provide competent and not merely nominal representation.
    5. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Requires the court to assign a pleader at state expense where the accused has no means to engage one.
    6. Advocates Act, 1961: Governs enrolment, professional conduct and the disciplinary jurisdiction of Bar Councils over advocates.
    7. Mediation Act, 2023: Institutionalises pre litigation mediation and links it to the legal services framework.
    8. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Provides the wider alternative dispute resolution framework within which Lok Adalats operate.

    Back2Basics: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

    1. Enactment and commencement: Passed in 1987 and brought into force on 9 November 1995.
    2. Administering ministry: The Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law and Justice.
    3. Apex body: NALSA, with the Chief Justice of India as Patron in Chief and the second senior most judge of the Supreme Court as Executive Chairman.
    4. State level: State Legal Services Authorities are headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court as Patron in Chief, with a sitting High Court judge as Executive Chairman.
    5. District and taluk level: District Legal Services Authorities are headed by the District Judge, and Taluk Legal Services Committees by a senior civil judge.
    6. Lok Adalats: The Act gives a Lok Adalat award the status of a civil court decree, which is final and not appealable.
    7. Supreme Court level: The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee provides legal aid for matters before the Supreme Court.

    Government Initiatives

    1. Legal Aid Defence Counsel System: Introduced by NALSA in 2022 to create a salaried public defence office in district legal services authorities.
    2. Tele Law: Connects citizens at Common Service Centres to panel lawyers through video conferencing for pre litigation advice.
    3. Nyaya Bandhu: A pro bono legal services programme linking volunteer advocates to registered applicants through a mobile application.
    4. Legal aid clinics: Village and community level clinics, and clinics inside prisons, staffed by para legal volunteers and panel lawyers.
    5. Under Trial Review Committees: District committees that review the cases of undertrial prisoners eligible for release on bail or on completion of maximum custody.
    6. Designing Innovative Solutions for Holistic Access to Justice (DISHA): The Department of Justice scheme integrating tele law, pro bono services and legal awareness.
    7. Pan India Legal Awareness and Outreach Campaign: NALSA’s nationwide campaign to inform citizens of legal entitlements at the panchayat level.

    Key Facts about Legal Aid in India

    1. National Legal Services Day: Observed on 9 November, the day the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 came into force.
    2. Reach of eligibility: Roughly 80 per cent of India’s population is eligible for free legal aid under the income and category criteria of Section 12.
    3. Landmark ruling on state funded defence: Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1979) held free legal aid to be part of a fair procedure under Article 21.
    4. Landmark ruling on assignment of counsel: Khatri v State of Bihar (1981) held that the right arises at the first production before the magistrate.
    5. Lok Adalat scale: National Lok Adalats dispose of crores of cases in a single sitting day, mostly pre litigation and compoundable matters.
    6. Custody context: Undertrials form about three quarters of India’s prison population, which is the primary constituency of the LADC system.
    7. Caseload in 2025 to 2026: LADCs were assigned 4,86,354 cases, including 1,88,878 bail cases.

    Challenges in Delivering Free Legal Aid

    1. Representation at the first hearing: Many accused persons face remand without counsel. e.g. prison legal aid clinics do not exist in every district jail, so first production frequently proceeds unrepresented.
    2. Quality of panel advocates: Empanelment is often by seniority or availability rather than by demonstrated competence in criminal defence. e.g. the assigned counsel system has been criticised for missed hearings and delayed applications.
    3. Delayed and low remuneration: Panel fees are modest and payment is slow. e.g. complaints regarding fees paid by the state are a standing feature of the assigned counsel model.
    4. Institutional resistance from the Bar: Reform of the delivery model is contested by organised professional bodies. e.g. Bar Associations in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh triggered the non renewal of LADC contracts.
    5. Absence of outcome measurement: No comparative evaluation exists between delivery models. e.g. no national assessment of the LADC system has been conducted since it began.
    6. Awareness and access: Eligible litigants in rural and tribal areas do not know of the entitlement or how to claim it. e.g. Tele Law was created precisely because pre litigation advice was unavailable at the village level.
    7. Prison overcrowding as the downstream cost: Weak bail advocacy translates into custody. e.g. Indian prisons operate well above sanctioned capacity, driven mainly by undertrial numbers.

    Way Forward

    1. Assess before deciding: Commission a national assessment of the LADC system measuring bail outcomes, appearance timeliness and disposal rates against the assigned counsel model.
    2. Protect ongoing matters: Continue existing engagements until each pending case reaches a natural stage, so representation does not break mid trial.
    3. Give the cadre statutory footing: Convert the LADC office into a permanent public defender structure with secure tenure and a defined career path.
    4. Reform assigned counsel in parallel: Raise panel fees, pay them promptly and empanel on demonstrated criminal defence competence to address the Bar’s underlying grievance.
    5. Cap caseloads: Set a maximum active caseload per counsel so that preparation time per client is protected.
    6. Publish performance data: Release district level legal aid outcome data so that the effectiveness of each model is verifiable.
    7. Guarantee representation at first production: Station legal aid counsel at every remand court and prison so that no accused person is produced unrepresented.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS2, 10 marks] Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority(NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India.”

  • Over 4,000 cases pending against MPs, MLAs: Amicus curiae to SC

    Why in the News

    The 22nd report of the amicus curiae to the Supreme Court records 4,192 criminal cases pending trial against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies, with 519 pending for more than a decade. The figure has stayed above 4,000 every year since 2018, through three rounds of Supreme Court directions creating special courts, designated courts and suo motu monitoring. The report therefore shifts the question from what should be ordered to why nine years of orders have not moved the number.

    Who is an amicus curiae?

    1. About: An amicus curiae is a senior lawyer appointed by a court to assist it impartially in a matter, rather than to represent any party before it.
    2. Role here: The amicus in this public interest litigation collects pendency data from every High Court, audits compliance with earlier directions and files periodic reports with recommendations.

    What is a designated court for cases against legislators?

    1. About: A designated court is an existing Sessions or Magisterial court identified in each district to hear criminal cases against sitting and former legislators on priority.
    2. Difference from a special court: A special court is constituted exclusively for such cases, while a designated court continues to carry its ordinary docket alongside them.

    What does the 22nd amicus report record?

    1. Total pendency: 4,192 cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs are pending trial across the country.
    2. The oldest bracket: 519 cases have been pending for more than a decade.
    3. Cases still under investigation: 700 cases are pending investigation, of which 360 have stayed at that stage for more than three years without a chargesheet.
    4. Source of the data: The figure is drawn from information received from High Courts and their websites, and the High Court websites together show 4,442 pending cases.
    5. A gap in reporting: The Allahabad High Court did not submit a report, so its figure of 1,171 cases is taken from its website as of February 2024.
    6. Reach into high office: Chief Ministers of 14 of 28 States have criminal cases pending trial against them.
    7. Where the case is listed: The matter was referred to a three judge Bench in February 2025 and was listed before that Bench on 18 August.

    What is the full pendency profile in the data?

    1. Cases pending for 5 to 10 years: 754.
    2. Cases pending for 3 to 5 years: 562.
    3. Cases pending for less than 3 years: 1,095.
    4. State wise concentration: Uttar Pradesh leads with 1,171 cases, followed by Kerala at 543, Bihar at 373, Maharashtra at 364 and Odisha at 330.
    5. Chief Ministers facing cases: The Telangana Chief Minister faces the highest number at 89, followed by the West Bengal Chief Minister at 29, the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Chief Ministers at 19 each and the Kerala Chief Minister at 18.
    6. The trend line: Pendency rose from 4,075 in December 2018 to 5,140 in November 2022 before settling at 4,192 in July 2026, remaining above 4,000 throughout.
    7. Scale in the sitting Houses: 251 of 543 members of the Lok Sabha and 75 of 233 members of the Rajya Sabha have criminal cases against them.
    8. Data caveat: The cut off dates for the State figures vary, so the totals are indicative rather than a single day snapshot.

    What has the Supreme Court already directed since 2017?

    1. Special courts in 2017: The Court ordered the setting up of 12 special courts in 10 States and Union Territories for speedy trial of criminal cases involving legislators.
    2. Designated courts in December 2018: It directed that one designated Sessions Court and one designated Magisterial Court be identified in every district to try such cases on priority.
    3. Suo motu monitoring in November 2023: It directed the Chief Justices of all High Courts to register suo motu cases to monitor early disposal and empowered special benches to issue directions for expeditious trial.
    4. Reference in February 2025: The matter went to a three judge Bench after an earlier amicus report flagged the absence of effective monitoring by most High Courts.
    5. The outcome so far: Pendency has remained at roughly the same level across all three rounds of directions.

    Why has pendency stayed above 4,000 since 2018?

    1. Designated courts carry ordinary work: Courts identified for legislators’ cases continue to handle their regular judicial docket, so priority exists on paper only.
    2. Repeated adjournments: Hearings are deferred at the instance of parties without effective cost or consequence.
    3. Non appearance of accused persons: Accused legislators fail to appear on listed dates, and the trial cannot proceed in their absence.
    4. Delays in securing witnesses: Witnesses are not produced on the dates fixed, breaking the continuity of evidence.
    5. Inadequate High Court monitoring: Most High Courts have not run the suo motu monitoring the Court ordered in November 2023.

    What does the amicus recommend?

    1. Exclusive trials: Designated courts should conduct trials involving lawmakers exclusively until their backlog is cleared.
    2. Day to day hearing: Cases pending for more than three years should be heard on a day to day basis.
    3. Non bailable warrants: Courts should issue non bailable warrants where an accused lawmaker fails to appear on two consecutive dates.
    4. Nodal prosecution officer: A nodal prosecution officer should be appointed to secure the attendance of witnesses.
    5. Real time data upload: Case data and order sheets should be uploaded in real time on High Court websites.
    6. Trial within one year: Trials should be completed within one year of the framing of charges.
    7. Monthly monitoring: High Courts should monitor cases pending for more than three years every month.
    8. Micro monitoring: Individual delayed cases should be tracked separately rather than only in aggregate.

    Does prioritising legislators’ cases sit comfortably with equal treatment of all undertrials?

    1. Two competing claims: Legislators exercise public power and merit faster scrutiny, while ordinary undertrials suffer longer custody and have a stronger claim under Article 21.
    2. Fixed judicial capacity: Exclusive trials for legislators redirect court time within an unchanged pool of judges, so another category of case slows down.
    3. The trigger for priority: A legislator’s continuation in office turns on conviction under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which no ordinary accused faces.
    4. Delay as a strategy: Prolonged trial protects the incumbent, so the beneficiary of delay is the accused who holds power.
    5. Why the equality objection is limited: The priority attaches to the office and its power over the criminal justice system, not to the person’s status as a citizen.
    6. The unresolved part: Neither the special courts of 2017 nor the designated courts of 2018 came with additional judges, so the priority was ordered without the capacity to deliver it.

    Challenges to expeditious trial of legislators

    1. No additional judicial capacity: Priority was mandated without creating new posts. e.g. the 2017 order created only 12 special courts across 10 States and Union Territories for a national caseload above 4,000.
    2. Investigation stalling before trial: A case never reaches the designated court if the chargesheet is not filed. e.g. 360 cases have stayed under investigation for more than three years without a chargesheet.
    3. Prosecutorial dependence on the executive: Public Prosecutors are appointed by State governments that the accused may lead. e.g. Chief Ministers of 14 of 28 States face pending criminal cases.
    4. Witness hostility and intimidation: Witnesses turn hostile where the accused holds local power. e.g. India still has no operational witness protection framework beyond the 2018 scheme approved in Mahender Chawla v Union of India.
    5. Withdrawal of prosecution: Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits withdrawal with the court’s consent. e.g. Uttar Pradesh moved to withdraw a large batch of political cases in 2020, prompting High Court scrutiny.
    6. Inconsistent High Court reporting: Monitoring cannot work without uniform data. e.g. the Allahabad High Court, holding the largest caseload at 1,171, did not submit a report at all.
    7. Conviction does not follow speed: Faster trials do not by themselves improve the quality of investigation. e.g. pendency fell from 5,140 in November 2022 to 4,192 in July 2026 without any recorded rise in convictions.

    Conclusion

    The report shows an institutional pattern rather than a backlog problem, since pendency has stayed above 4,000 through three separate rounds of Supreme Court directions since 2017. Priority listing without additional judges, an independent prosecution and enforceable attendance simply redistributes delay. The matter now stands listed before a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 18 August, where the amicus has sought exclusive trials, day to day hearing of cases older than three years and completion of trial within one year of charge framing. The number to watch after that hearing is the count of cases older than a decade, currently 519.

    “[2024, GS2, 15 marks] Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?”

  • Editorial on the Air India AI 2379 reclassification argues crew testing over emphasises alcohol breathalysers relative to psychoactive substances under the Civil Aviation Requirements

    Why in the News

    The 4 August 2026 flight from Phuket to Delhi, carrying 137 passengers and eight crew, has been reclassified from an event of turbulence to a serious incident after technical faults and a significant altitude deviation injured more than 20 people on board. The post flight screening of the pilot in command for psychoactive substances has exposed a crew fitness regime built around alcohol breathalysers rather than drug testing.

    What are the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR)?

    1. About: The Civil Aviation Requirements are the binding regulatory instructions issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) under the aircraft rules, organised into numbered Sections and Series that operators must comply with to hold and retain approvals.
    2. The relevant provision: Crew testing for psychoactive substances falls under CAR Section 5, Air Safety, Series F, Part V, which also applies to Air Traffic Controllers.
    3. Its testing design: The requirement leans towards random and post flight or post shift testing with graded disciplinary action for a confirmed positive result.

    What is a serious incident in civil aviation?

    1. About: A serious incident is an occurrence involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred, a category distinct from an accident by the absence of the resulting damage or injury threshold.
    2. Why the label matters: Reclassification from turbulence to a serious incident makes a formal independent investigation mandatory rather than leaving the occurrence to airline level reporting.

    What is the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau?

    1. About: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is the body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation that investigates aircraft accidents and serious incidents, kept institutionally separate from the DGCA so the regulator does not investigate outcomes of its own oversight.
    2. International participation: Investigations draw in the safety authority of the State of design and manufacture, which is why France’s Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses (BEA) and technical representatives of the manufacturer have joined this probe.

    What are psychoactive substances in the aviation context?

    1. About: Psychoactive substances are drugs that act on the central nervous system and alter perception, mood or cognition, covering narcotics, sedatives, hypnotics, cannabis, stimulants and certain over the counter medications.
    2. Why they matter on the flight deck: They impair judgement, reaction time, coordination and decision making, which are the four skills a flight crew relies on during an abnormal event.

    What actually happened on the flight?

    1. Two parallel tracks: The occurrence now has a technical track and a crew fitness track, and the second has drawn the greater attention.
    2. The technical anomalies: The Airbus A320N briefly carried fault warnings across the hydraulic systems, elevator flight control faults, autopilot disconnection, emergency exit door indications and an engine anti ice warning.
    3. The consequence: Inflight technical issues and a significant deviation in aircraft altitude caused injuries to more than 20 passengers and crew.
    4. The manufacturer’s data: Airbus’s initial data is said to support the evidence of technical errors.
    5. The airline’s response: The operator has begun immediate and mandatory screening of its flight deck crew for any substances or unprescribed medications.

    Why does the current crew screening regime under detect impairment?

    1. The testing asymmetry: Pre flight and post flight breathalyser checks for alcohol are routine and near universal, while testing for psychoactive substances is comparatively sparse.
    2. Detection after the event, not before: The pilot in command’s result surfaced through post flight screening following an incident, which means the system caught the risk only after passengers were injured.
    3. Random testing as the primary tool: A regime built on random and post shift sampling cannot guarantee that an impaired crew member is stopped before a specific flight departs.
    4. Voluntary action filling a regulatory gap: Mandatory screening began because a single airline was prodded into it, not because the requirement applies uniformly across operators.
    5. Rising exposure: Expanding operations, crew citing stress related issues, and wider availability of substances for medicinal or recreational use together enlarge the risk the regime is not sized for.

    What does the regulator’s own evidence base already establish?

    1. The medical circular: DGCA Medical Circular No. 02 of 2021 on over the counter drugs and self medication flags impairment of pilot cognitive and psychomotor skills.
    2. The Indian precedents it draws on: The circular draws on the Mangaluru (2010) and Kozhikode (2020) fatal air accidents. The 2010 crash of an Air India Express flight at Mangaluru killed 158 people after a runway overrun on a tabletop runway, and the 2020 accident at Kozhikode killed 21 in a similar runway excursion.
    3. International documentation: Documented cases from Western jurisdictions show that even small levels of impairment affect crew judgement, reaction time, coordination and decision making.
    4. The implication: The evidence linking impairment to fatal outcomes already exists in the regulator’s own material, so the gap is enforcement design rather than knowledge.

    Challenges to crew fitness regulation in India

    1. Self reporting of medication and illness: Disclosure of prescribed and over the counter drug use depends on the crew member volunteering it, with a licence at stake. e.g. DGCA Medical Circular No. 02 of 2021 exists precisely because self medication goes undeclared.
    2. Punitive rather than rehabilitative framing: Graded disciplinary action deters disclosure of a substance or mental health problem instead of surfacing it. e.g. pilot bodies have repeatedly objected that a positive breathalyser result triggers suspension without a treatment pathway.
    3. Fatigue rules lagging operations: Flight duty time limitations are revised slowly while network expansion increases night operations. e.g. revised flight duty time limitation norms for night duty and weekly rest were phased in only after sustained pilot representations.
    4. Testing infrastructure at smaller stations: Drug testing requires sample collection, chain of custody and accredited laboratories that are absent outside metro airports. e.g. a post flight test at a small regional airport under the regional connectivity network has no on site collection facility.
    5. Thin regulatory staffing against a growing fleet: Oversight capacity has not scaled with aircraft and operator numbers. e.g. the International Civil Aviation Organization’s safety oversight audits have repeatedly flagged vacancies in the technical cadre of the Indian regulator.
    6. Air Traffic Controllers inside the same requirement, outside the same attention: The requirement covers controllers, and the screening debate stays confined to flight deck crew. e.g. controller fatigue and staffing shortfalls at busy terminal control areas rarely feature in post incident action.

    Conclusion

    The reclassification converts an event described as turbulence into a serious incident with a formal investigation into both airframe faults and crew fitness. The crew screening system detected a psychoactive substance result only after an incident had already injured more than 20 people, because the regime is built around alcohol breathalysers and random sampling. The next step is the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s findings with the French authority and the manufacturer, and the immediate question for the regulator is whether mandatory psychoactive substance screening becomes a uniform requirement across operators rather than one airline’s response. Safety here depended on the aircraft recovering, and that is an outcome, not a control.

    Civil Aviation Safety Regulation in India

    1. About: Civil aviation safety in India is regulated by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which certifies aircraft, licenses crew, approves operators and issues the Civil Aviation Requirements.
    2. Investigation function: Accidents and serious incidents are investigated by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, kept separate from the regulator, in line with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Annex 13 principle that investigation is for prevention and not for apportioning blame.
    3. Economic regulation: The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority sets tariffs for major airports, and the Airports Authority of India provides air navigation services and manages airports.
    4. Scale: India is among the largest domestic aviation markets in the world, with fleet and passenger volumes growing faster than regulatory staffing.
    5. International anchor: India is a founding member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and Indian standards derive from the Chicago Convention, 1944 and its Annexes.

    Laws and Rules Governing Civil Aviation Safety

    1. Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024: The principal aviation statute, which replaced the Aircraft Act, 1934 and governs the manufacture, possession, use, operation and sale of aircraft.
    2. Retains the power to make rules for licensing of personnel, airworthiness and investigation of accidents, and provides for statutory recognition of the regulator and the investigation bureau.
    3. Aircraft Act, 1934: The predecessor statute under which the existing rules and requirements were framed and which continues to supply their legal lineage.
    4. Aircraft Rules, 1937: Contain the operative rules on airworthiness, crew licensing, and prohibition on flying under the influence of alcohol or psychoactive substances.
    5. Rule 24 prohibits any person from acting as a crew member while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
    6. Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017: Provide the legal basis for the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau and define accident, incident and serious incident.
    7. Civil Aviation Requirements: Subordinate regulatory instructions of the DGCA, with Section 5, Series F, Part V governing psychoactive substance testing of crew and air traffic controllers.
    8. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008: Establishes the economic regulator for major airports.
    9. Anti Hijacking Act, 2016: Provides for the offence of hijacking and prescribes the death penalty where the offence results in death of a hostage or security personnel.
    10. Carriage by Air Act, 1972: Gives effect in India to the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions on carrier liability to passengers.

    Back2Basics: Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)

    1. Type: Attached office of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, functioning as India’s civil aviation regulator.
    2. Governing law: Operates under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, which replaced the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
    3. Mandate: Regulation of air transport services, enforcement of civil air regulations, air safety and airworthiness standards.
    4. Functions: Registration of civil aircraft, certification of airworthiness, licensing of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers, and grant of air operator certificates.
    5. Instruments: Issues Civil Aviation Requirements, Aeronautical Information Circulars and Medical Circulars.
    6. International role: Coordinates regulatory functions with the International Civil Aviation Organization, which was founded in 1944 under the Chicago Convention and is headquartered in Montreal.
    7. Related bodies: The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security handles aviation security, and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau handles accident and serious incident investigation.

    Government Initiatives in Civil Aviation

    1. National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016: The first integrated civil aviation policy, covering regional connectivity, safety, maintenance and repair, and air cargo.
    2. UDAN (Ude Desh ka Aam Naagrik) Regional Connectivity Scheme: Connects unserved and underserved airports through capped fares and viability gap funding.
    3. Krishi UDAN: Supports air transport of perishable agricultural produce from hill, tribal and North Eastern regions.
    4. Digi Yatra: Facial recognition based contactless passenger processing at airports.
    5. eGCA: Digitisation of the regulator’s licensing, examination and approval processes to cut manual discretion.
    6. NABH Nirman: Initiative to expand airport capacity to handle a billion trips.
    7. Aviation Safety Programme and State Safety Programme: Framework of safety management systems, mandatory occurrence reporting and safety performance indicators for operators.
    8. Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul policy support: Tax and customs measures to develop domestic aircraft maintenance capacity.

    Key Facts about Civil Aviation Safety

    1. The Chicago Convention, 1944 created the International Civil Aviation Organization, headquartered in Montreal, and India is a founding member.
    2. Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention governs aircraft accident and incident investigation, and defines a serious incident.
    3. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau was constituted in 2012 and functions under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017.
    4. International Civil Aviation Day is observed on 7 December.
    5. The Mangaluru accident of 2010 killed 158 people and the Kozhikode accident of 2020 killed 21, both at tabletop runways.
    6. The Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 replaced the Aircraft Act, 1934 as India’s principal aviation statute.
    7. CAR Section 5, Series F, Part V is the specific requirement governing psychoactive substance testing of crew and air traffic controllers.

    Challenges in India’s Civil Aviation Sector

    1. Regulator capacity against fleet growth: Technical posts remain vacant while aircraft numbers, operators and flights expand. e.g. International Civil Aviation Organization safety oversight audits have flagged shortfalls in trained flight operations inspectors.
    2. Airport and airspace congestion: Slot and runway capacity at metro airports lags demand, which compresses turnaround times and crew rest. e.g. Delhi and Mumbai airports operating near saturation during peak banks.
    3. Airline financial fragility: Thin margins push cost cutting into maintenance, training and rostering. e.g. the collapse of Jet Airways in 2019 and of Go First in 2023 left aircraft grounded and crew displaced.
    4. Skilled manpower shortage: Pilots, aircraft maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers are trained in numbers below the sector’s expansion rate. e.g. Indian carriers holding large order books have had to lease aircraft with foreign crew.
    5. Maintenance dependence on foreign facilities: A limited domestic maintenance base sends heavy checks abroad, raising cost and turnaround time. e.g. a large share of Indian airline heavy maintenance has historically been done in Sri Lanka, Singapore and West Asia.
    6. Bird strike and wildlife hazard at airports: Waste dumps and abattoirs near airport perimeters draw birds into approach paths. e.g. recurring bird strike reports at airports adjoining municipal landfill sites.
    7. Weather and terrain risk at critical airfields: Tabletop runways and monsoon operations narrow the safety margin. e.g. the Kozhikode runway excursion in heavy rain in 2020.

    Way Forward

    1. Make psychoactive substance screening mandatory and uniform: Extend routine pre flight and post flight screening for substances beyond alcohol across every operator rather than leaving it to voluntary action.
    2. Build a non punitive disclosure pathway: Create a confidential reporting and rehabilitation route for crew with a substance or mental health problem, with return to duty after medical clearance.
    3. Expand testing infrastructure: Provide accredited sample collection and chain of custody facilities at regional airports, not only at metro stations.
    4. Strengthen fatigue risk management: Enforce revised flight duty time limitations with audited rostering data instead of self declared compliance.
    5. Staff the regulator: Fill technical inspector vacancies and give the regulator recruitment autonomy so oversight scales with fleet growth.
    6. Extend the same rigour to Air Traffic Controllers: Apply the testing and fatigue standards uniformly to controllers, who are already covered by the same requirement.
    7. Publish investigation findings promptly: Release Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau reports with safety recommendations and track their implementation publicly.

    PYQ:

    “`

    [2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.

    “`

  • Bar Council of India faces no confidence demand over its withdrawn order barring NALSAR 2026 graduates from enrolment, raising Advocates Act and Article 19 questions

    Why in the News

    The Bar Council of India (BCI) directed State Bar Councils on 13 August 2026 not to enrol the 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law, after some students opposed the proposed participation of the Chief Justice of India in the university’s convocation, and withdrew the order the same day. Three lawyers’ collectives have since sought the chairman’s resignation and threatened a no confidence resolution. The episode tests whether a statutory regulator may use its power over entry into a profession as a sanction for dissent.

    What is the Bar Council of India?

    1. About: The Bar Council of India is the statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the legal profession and legal education in India.
    2. Composition: It is composed of members elected by each State Bar Council from among its own members, with the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India as ex officio members.
    3. Core functions: It lays down standards of professional conduct, exercises disciplinary jurisdiction, recognises universities whose law degrees qualify for enrolment, and promotes legal education.
    4. Where enrolment happens: An advocate is enrolled on the roll of a State Bar Council, and the Bar Council of India exercises general supervision over those Councils.
    5. Why enrolment matters: Only an enrolled advocate may practise before courts, so an enrolment bar operates on livelihood, not merely on professional formality.

    What is the All India Bar Examination?

    1. About: The All India Bar Examination (AIBE) is an examination conducted by the Bar Council of India, which an enrolled law graduate must clear to obtain a Certificate of Practice.
    2. Legal basis: It was introduced in 2010 under the Council’s rule making power in Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and its validity was upheld in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023.

    What is the current status of the right to dissent in India?

    1. Scope of the guarantee: Article 19(1)(a) protects speech and expression for all citizens, including criticism of the government, of institutions and of individual office holders.
    2. Peaceful assembly: Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, which covers organised campus protest.
    3. Settled limits: A restriction must be reasonable and must fall within one of the eight grounds in Article 19(2), namely sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
    4. What is not a ground: Disagreement with the conduct, views or public actions of a constitutional office holder is not by itself a permitted ground of restriction.
    5. Standard of scrutiny: A restriction that is vague or overbroad fails even where its objective is legitimate, following Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015.
    6. Students retain the right: A law student does not surrender constitutional freedoms merely by intending to become an advocate.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Free Speech and Professional Regulation

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
    2. Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    3. Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
    4. Article 19(2): Lists the exhaustive grounds on which speech may be restricted by law.
    5. Article 19(3): Permits reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
    6. Article 19(6): Permits reasonable restrictions on the right to practise a profession, including prescription of professional or technical qualifications.
    7. Article 14: Requires State action to be non arbitrary, which is the test a cohort wide sanction must satisfy.
    8. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read to include the right to livelihood.
    9. Entry 26 of the Concurrent List: Places legal, medical and other professions in the Seventh Schedule’s Concurrent List, which is the source of Parliament’s power to enact the Advocates Act, 1961.
    10. Articles 32 and 226: Provide the writ remedies through which a regulator’s direction is challenged.

    What did the Bar Council of India order and then withdraw?

    1. The directive: On 13 August 2026 the Council directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates until further orders.
    2. The trigger: The direction followed reports that some students had opposed the proposed participation of the Chief Justice of India in the university’s convocation.
    3. The inquiry demand: The Council sought details of the students who initiated or organised the campaign.
    4. The reversal: Later the same day the Council recorded that the vast majority were innocent and allowed all 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.
    5. The apology: The Council’s chairman apologised to the law students on the following day.
    6. What survives the withdrawal: The order operated as a collective sanction on an entire graduating cohort, without any individual finding against any student.

    Why does a blanket enrolment bar fail the Article 19 test?

    1. The rights engaged: The bar responded to expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) and to campus organisation protected by Article 19(1)(b).
    2. No listed ground applies: Objection to a constitutional office holder’s participation in a convocation falls within none of the Article 19(2) grounds.
    3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 because its vague and overbroad restrictions could not be justified under Article 19(2). It held that speech may not be suppressed for being inconvenient, unpopular or offensive to a person or authority.
    4. Ramlila Maidan Incident case, 2012: The Court described freedom of speech and peaceful assembly as basic features of a democratic system and warned against arbitrary State action that frustrates those freedoms.
    5. Overbreadth in application: Sanctioning every graduate for the acts of a few is an overbroad measure by definition, since it captures conduct the regulator itself found innocent.
    6. Livelihood consequence: Withholding enrolment blocks entry into practice altogether, which engages Article 19(1)(g) and makes the measure disproportionate to any professional interest asserted.

    What limits does the Advocates Act, 1961 place on the regulator?

    1. Source and boundary of power: The Advocates Act, 1961 sets out the functions of the Bar Council of India. It confers no general power to punish conduct the Council considers objectionable.
    2. Section 24: Prescribes the conditions of eligibility for admission as an advocate on a State roll, including the law degree requirement and the minimum age.
    3. Section 24A: Sets out the specific disqualifications for enrolment, such as conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.
    4. No new disqualification by instruction: A regulator cannot create a fresh disqualification through an executive direction when Parliament has already prescribed the conditions for enrolment.
    5. Section 7: Requires the Council to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates, alongside protecting the standards and dignity of the profession.
    6. Individualised process required: Where particular students cross into misconduct, they must be identified individually and proceeded against under the appropriate mechanism.
    7. Sri S Basavaraj v. Bar Council of India, 2024: The Karnataka High Court held that general supervision and control over State Bar Councils does not by itself confer power to issue gag orders. A power that cannot silence enrolled advocates cannot be stretched further against students yet to enter the profession.

    Why are lawyers’ collectives seeking a no confidence motion?

    1. Who is demanding it: The All India Lawyers Association for Justice, the National Alliance for Justice Accountability and Rights and the Queer Lawyers Association, claiming over 700 members between them, have endorsed a letter seeking the chairman’s resignation.
    2. The escalation route: Failing resignation, the collectives intend to ask the other members of the Bar Council of India to pass a resolution of no confidence.
    3. The charge: The statement alleges a pattern of arbitrariness and a failure to uphold the interests and integrity of the Bar.
    4. The institutional claim: The independence, integrity and autonomy of the legal profession are asserted as preconditions for a functioning democracy.
    5. The historical argument: The Bar’s contribution to the freedom struggle rested on a capacity to protest against perceived injustice, and that capacity is described as having declined.
    6. The professional irony: Law schools train students to question authority and advocates are expected to challenge executive action, so treating disagreement as evidence of unfitness teaches the opposite lesson.

    Major debates surrounding the regulation of the legal profession

    1. Self regulation against public accountability: The Council is elected by the advocates it disciplines, which is defended as professional independence and criticised as a structural conflict of interest.
    2. Regulator of education or of practice: The Council both recognises law colleges and controls entry to practice, and one view holds that legal education belongs with a dedicated higher education regulator.
    3. Cost of entry: The Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 capped enrolment fees at 750 rupees for general category candidates and 125 rupees for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, holding higher State Bar Council levies unlawful.
    4. Entry of foreign lawyers: The Council’s rules permitting foreign lawyers and law firms to advise on foreign law in India on a reciprocal basis remain contested within the Bar.
    5. Right to strike: Ex Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 2002 held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts, and boycotts nonetheless recur.
    6. Statutory autonomy against government control: The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposed to bar strikes and allow central nomination of members to the Council, was withdrawn after nationwide protests, leaving the balance unsettled.
    7. Dissent and professional discipline: The live question is whether expressing disagreement with a constitutional office holder can ever amount to professional misconduct.

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India

    1. Disciplinary backlog: Section 36B requires a State Bar Council to dispose of a complaint within one year, failing which it stands transferred to the Bar Council of India. e.g. transferred proceedings accumulate for years before the Council’s disciplinary committees, so a complaint’s remedy outlives the grievance.
    2. Quality control over legal education: Inspection and recognition run behind approval. e.g. more than 1,700 law institutions operate in India, and the Council has periodically derecognised colleges functioning without permanent faculty or a working library.
    3. Conflict of interest in an elected regulator: Members are elected by the advocates they must later discipline. e.g. State Bar Council election disputes have repeatedly reached High Courts, delaying the very committees that hear misconduct complaints.
    4. Verification of qualifications: Fraudulent degrees are hard to detect after enrolment. e.g. the verification drive under the Certificate of Practice and Renewal of Practice Rules, 2014 found a substantial number of enrolled persons unable to produce valid law degrees.
    5. Uneven capacity across State Bar Councils: Enrolment standards and grievance handling differ sharply between Councils. e.g. an advocate enrolled with a smaller State Bar Council faces materially different scrutiny from one enrolled in a large metropolitan Council.
    6. Weak protection for junior advocates: The Council prescribes no enforceable minimum stipend and no professional insurance. e.g. junior advocates in district courts commonly work several years on stipends below minimum wage levels.

    Conclusion

    The order has been withdrawn, so no NALSAR graduate now faces a bar on enrolment. The underlying question is unresolved, that a statutory regulator treated disagreement with a constitutional office holder as a reason to withhold entry into a profession, a ground the Advocates Act, 1961 does not contain and Article 19(2) does not permit. The next development to watch is whether the Council’s other members take up the no confidence demand, and whether a reasoned withdrawal is issued recording the limits of the Council’s own power.

    The Legal Profession in India

    1. About: The legal profession in India is a unified Bar, in which an advocate enrolled with any State Bar Council may practise before any court, tribunal or authority in the country.
    2. Regulatory architecture: A single statutory regulator governs both entry into practice and the standards of legal education, an arrangement uncommon among other regulated professions in India.
    3. Scale: Around 15 lakh advocates are on the rolls of the State Bar Councils, and more than 1,700 institutions offer law degrees.
    4. Entry route: A three year LLB after graduation or a five year integrated law degree from a recognised institution, followed by enrolment with a State Bar Council and the All India Bar Examination.
    5. National Law Universities: The model began with the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in 1987, and admission to most such universities is through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).
    6. Institutional load: The profession serves the Supreme Court, 25 High Courts, the district judiciary and a large tribunal system, with pendency exceeding five crore cases across all levels.

    Constitutional Framework Governing the Judiciary and the Legal Profession

    1. Article 22(1): Guarantees an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
    2. Article 39A: Directs the State to provide free legal aid so that justice is not denied for economic or other disability.
    3. Article 124 and Article 217: Govern appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, with practice at the Bar as a qualifying route.
    4. Article 129 and Article 215: Make the Supreme Court and High Courts courts of record with power to punish for contempt, which sets the outer limit of permissible criticism.
    5. Article 145: Empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules regulating practice and procedure, including conditions for advocates practising before it.
    6. Articles 233 to 237: Govern appointments to the subordinate judiciary, for which practice as an advocate is a qualifying condition.
    7. Entry 26 of the Concurrent List: Places legal, medical and other professions within the competence of both Parliament and State legislatures.

    Laws and Rules Governing the Legal Profession

    1. Advocates Act, 1961: Consolidates the law relating to legal practitioners and creates a single class of practitioners called advocates.
    2. Section 4: Constitutes the Bar Council of India.
    3. Section 6: Sets out the functions of a State Bar Council, including admission and maintenance of the roll of advocates.
    4. Section 7: Sets out the functions of the Bar Council of India, including safeguarding the rights, privileges and interests of advocates.
    5. Section 24: Prescribes the eligibility conditions for enrolment.
    6. Section 24A: Prescribes the specific disqualifications for enrolment.
    7. Section 35: Provides disciplinary jurisdiction over professional misconduct.
    8. Section 49: Confers the general rule making power under which the All India Bar Examination was introduced.
    9. Bar Council of India Rules, 1975: Prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette, including duties to the court, the client and the opponent.
    10. Bar Council of India Legal Education Rules, 2008: Govern recognition of law institutions, curriculum and infrastructure requirements.
    11. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Establishes the National Legal Services Authority and the Lok Adalat system.
    12. It created a statutory entitlement to free legal services for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women, children, industrial workmen and persons in custody.
    13. Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023: Repealed obsolete legal practitioner statutes and empowered High Courts to frame rules on touts.
    14. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines civil and criminal contempt and provides truth and fair criticism as defences.
    15. Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Proposed restrictions on strikes and central nomination to the Bar Council, and was withdrawn after protests by the Bar.

    Back2Basics: NALSAR University of Law

    1. A National Law University at Hyderabad, Telangana, established in 1998 by an Act of the then Andhra Pradesh legislature.
    2. The name stands for the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research.
    3. It was the second National Law University set up in India, after the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.
    4. The Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana is its Chancellor, a pattern followed by most National Law Universities.
    5. Admission to its undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes is through the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).
    6. Its degrees are recognised by the Bar Council of India under the Legal Education Rules, which is what makes its graduates eligible for enrolment.

    Government Initiatives

    1. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Provides free legal aid and organises Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
    2. Tele Law: Delivers pre litigation legal advice to rural citizens through Common Service Centres, connecting them to panel lawyers by video conference.
    3. Nyaya Bandhu: A pro bono legal services platform matching volunteer advocates with eligible litigants.
    4. e-Courts Mission Mode Project: Digitises case records and enables electronic filing and virtual hearings, now in its third phase.
    5. Legal Aid Defence Counsel System: Creates a full time salaried defence counsel office at the district level for criminal legal aid.
    6. Fast Track Special Courts: Dedicated courts for offences against women and children, including cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
    7. Nyaya Vikas and Gram Nyayalayas: Central assistance for judicial infrastructure and village level courts for affordable justice at the doorstep.

    Key Facts about the Legal Profession

    1. Constitution Day, also observed as Law Day, falls on 26 November, marking the adoption of the Constitution in 1949.
    2. National Legal Services Day is observed on 9 November, marking the commencement of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
    3. The All India Bar Examination has been conducted since 2010 and is required for a Certificate of Practice.
    4. The National Law School of India University, Bengaluru was the first National Law University, established in 1987.
    5. The Advocates Act, 1961 created a unified Bar and abolished the earlier distinctions between vakils, pleaders, barristers and attorneys.
    6. The designation of Senior Advocate is conferred by the Supreme Court or a High Court under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the criteria were laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2017.
    7. The Attorney General for India is appointed under Article 76 and is an ex officio member of the Bar Council of India.

    Challenges in the Legal Profession and Legal Education

    1. Uneven quality of legal education: A handful of national institutions coexist with a very large number of poorly resourced colleges. e.g. the Bar Council has issued show cause notices to affiliated colleges functioning without permanent faculty or a functional library.
    2. Barriers to entry for first generation lawyers: Practice begins with years of low or no income and no institutional support. e.g. junior advocates in district courts frequently earn below minimum wage in their first three to five years.
    3. Pendency shapes practice: Delay rewards adjournment driven litigation and erodes client confidence. e.g. pendency across all courts exceeds five crore cases, with the district judiciary carrying the largest share.
    4. Narrow pool for elevation and designation: Advancement draws disproportionately from established practices. e.g. the share of women among designated Senior Advocates and among High Court judges remains in the low double digits.
    5. Weak enforcement of professional discipline: Complaints against advocates are slow to reach a finding. e.g. complaints transferred under Section 36B accumulate for years before the Bar Council of India.
    6. Court boycotts and strikes: Work stoppages transfer the cost of professional grievances to litigants. e.g. district bar associations have suspended work for weeks over demands unconnected to any pending case, despite Ex Capt Harish Uppal.
    7. Access to justice for the poor: Legal aid is under used and under funded relative to the eligible population. e.g. a majority of undertrial prisoners are assigned legal aid counsel late in the proceedings.

    Way Forward

    1. Codify the limits of regulatory direction: Require the Bar Council to act only through the disqualifications Parliament has specified, with reasons recorded for any direction affecting enrolment.
    2. Provide an individualised misconduct procedure for students: Create a defined process with notice, hearing and appeal, so that no collective sanction can be imposed on a cohort.
    3. Separate legal education regulation from practice regulation: Vest curriculum and accreditation in a specialised body with academic representation, leaving practice standards with the Bar Council.
    4. Time bound disciplinary adjudication: Fix statutory outer limits for disposal of complaints and publish annual disposal data for every State Bar Council.
    5. Institutionalise a junior advocate stipend: Fund the first three years of practice so entry is not restricted to those with family support.
    6. Strengthen legal aid quality: Extend the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System to every district and link remuneration to case stages rather than a flat fee.
    7. Protect lawful criticism in professional standards: Amend the Bar Council of India Rules to state that lawful criticism of institutions or office holders does not by itself constitute professional misconduct.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
    1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
    2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
    (a) 1 only
    (b) 2 only
    (c) Both 1 and 2
    (d) Neither 1 nor 2
    Answer: (b)”

  • Basic amenities are missing in 89% of audited stations

    Why in the News

    A Comptroller and Auditor General performance audit of passenger amenities and sanitation found that 458 of 512 audited railway stations, nearly 89 per cent, were deficient in one or more minimum essential amenities. The shortfall persisted while the annual allocation rose from about Rs 3,900 crore to Rs 14,072 crore in 2023-24. The tension is between a large capital modernisation programme and the unmet basic amenity standard the railway itself has notified.

    What is a minimum essential amenity?

    1. About: Minimum essential amenities are the facilities Indian Railways is required to provide at every station regardless of category, distinct from desirable or recommended amenities.
    2. Coverage: They include drinking water, seating, platform shelter, latrines, urinals, fans, lighting and a clock.
    3. Why the category matters: These are not aspirational upgrades, so a shortfall is a failure against the railway’s own mandatory standard.

    What did the audit actually find?

    1. Overall deficiency: 458 of 512 stations audited were deficient in one or more minimum essential amenities, and only 54 stations, 11 per cent, had no shortfall.
    2. Amenity wise gaps: Fans were missing at 42 per cent of stations, water coolers at 40 per cent, drinking water taps at 27 per cent, urinals at 22 per cent, seating at 15 per cent, platform shelters at 13 per cent, latrines at 12 per cent and clocks at 12 per cent.
    3. Sample base: The sample was drawn from 5,908 stations across 16 zones, running 7,424 passenger trains daily and serving 292.4 crore passengers in 2023-24.
    4. Non modernised share: 325 of the 512 audited stations were outside the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme.
    5. Accessibility gap: Ramps, tactile pathways, lifts, accessible toilets and announcements for persons with disabilities were inadequate and non compliant.

    Why did higher allocation not translate into amenities?

    1. Utilisation shortfall: Year on year underutilisation of the allocated budget ran at 36 to 44 per cent.
    2. Allocation discontinuity: The budget sat near Rs 3,200 to Rs 3,900 crore from 2019-20 to 2022-23, then jumped to Rs 14,072 crore in 2023-24, faster than execution capacity grew.
    3. Programme concentration: Modernisation attention has focused on the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme stations, while most audited deficiencies sat at the 325 stations outside it.
    4. Absent planning instrument: The audit found no station wise time bound action plan against which shortfalls could be tracked and closed.

    What does this say about audit’s role in policy implementation?

    1. Scope of the audit: The audit examined delivery against the railway’s own notified amenity standard, not the merit of the modernisation policy.
    2. Constitutional basis: The Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers over Union and state accounts derive from Article 149.
    3. Propriety dimension: Auditing whether sanctioned money produced the mandated outcome is a propriety question, not merely a legality question.
    4. Recommendation: The audit recommends station wise time bound action plans, which converts a diagnostic finding into a management instrument.

    Challenges in railway passenger amenity delivery

    1. Capital bias in allocation: Spending concentrates on visible redevelopment rather than on recurring maintenance. e.g. the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme covering over 1,300 stations while basic fans and taps remain absent elsewhere.
    2. Execution capacity ceiling: A sudden allocation jump outruns the tendering and contracting machinery. e.g. 36 to 44 per cent annual underutilisation despite a rising budget.
    3. Maintenance versus creation: Created assets degrade without a funded maintenance line. e.g. installed water coolers found non functional across audited stations.
    4. Accessibility non compliance: Statutory accessibility obligations remain unmet at most stations. e.g. tactile pathways and accessible toilets found inadequate in the audit sample.
    5. Small station neglect: Low footfall stations fall outside modernisation schemes and outside political attention. e.g. 325 of the 512 audited stations sitting outside the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme.
    6. Outcome measurement: Performance is reported as stations sanctioned rather than as amenities functioning. e.g. the absence of any station wise time bound action plan noted by the audit.

    Conclusion

    The audit shows that the constraint is not money but the capacity to convert money into functioning amenities, since underutilisation ran between 36 and 44 per cent while deficiency stayed near 89 per cent. Modernisation of a selected 1,300 stations does not substitute for the mandatory amenity standard owed at all 5,908. The next milestone is whether the railway adopts the station wise time bound action plans the audit has recommended.

    Back2Basics: Comptroller and Auditor General of India

    1. Established under Article 148, appointed by the President and removable only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge.
    2. Holds office for six years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier.
    3. Powers and conditions of service are governed by the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    4. Article 149 defines duties in relation to the accounts of the Union, the states and other authorities.
    5. Audit reports are laid before Parliament under Article 151 and examined by the Public Accounts Committee.
    6. Conducts financial, compliance and performance audits, the last of which examines economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

    Government Initiatives

    1. Amrit Bharat Station Scheme: Launched in 2022 to modernise over 1,300 stations through master planning, targeting passengers at medium and small stations.
    2. Rail Kaushal Vikas Yojana: Provides skill training to youth using railway training infrastructure.
    3. Swachh Rail Swachh Bharat: Extends the sanitation mission to station and coach cleanliness, with third party cleanliness ranking of stations.
    4. Accessible India Campaign: Requires accessibility retrofitting of public transport infrastructure including railway stations.

    Way Forward

    1. Adopt station wise action plans: Publish a dated closure plan for every deficient amenity at every audited station.
    2. Fund maintenance separately: Create a protected maintenance head so created assets do not degrade into the same deficiency.
    3. Prioritise non scheme stations: Direct amenity spending first to the stations outside the modernisation scheme, where the audit found most gaps.
    4. Report functioning, not sanction: Measure performance by amenities working on inspection date, not by units installed.
    5. Enforce accessibility standards: Bring station infrastructure into compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 obligations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016, GS2, 12.5 marks] Exercise of CAG’s powers in relation to the accounts of the Union and the States is derived from Article 149 of the Indian Constitution. Discuss whether audit of the Government’s Policy implementation could amount to overstepping its own (CAG) jurisdiction.”

  • Bar Council of India’s blanket enrolment bar on a law school batch tests the limits of the Advocates Act

    The Bar Council of India directed every State Bar Council to stop enrolling the 2026 graduating batch of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, after about 450 of its students objected to the Chief Justice of India attending their convocation as chief guest. The directive was withdrawn within a day, but it had already treated a peaceful protest as a bar on entry to a profession, a ground the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise. The Supreme Court barred coercive action against the students and gave the Council two weeks to explain itself.

    What is the Bar Council of India?

    1. About: It is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the legal profession and legal education in India.
    2. Composition: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India are ex officio members, and each State Bar Council elects one member to it.
    3. Core functions: It lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, exercises disciplinary jurisdiction, and recognises universities whose law degrees qualify a person for enrolment.
    4. Supervisory role: Section 7(1)(g) gives it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils.
    5. What it cannot do: No provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 gives it the power to enrol a person as an advocate.

    What is the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)?

    1. About: It is a national law university at Hyderabad, created by a State Act in 1998, and among the earliest institutions built on the five year integrated law degree model.
    2. Relevance here: Its 2026 graduating batch was the subject of the enrolment freeze directed at all State Bar Councils.

    What is moral turpitude?

    1. About: It refers to conduct that is inherently base or depraved and contrary to accepted standards of honesty and justice, judged by the nature of the act rather than the length of the sentence.
    2. Statutory use: Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 bars enrolment of a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

    What is a chilling effect?

    1. About: It is the deterrent effect a threatened penalty has on lawful speech, where a person stays silent to avoid risk rather than because the speech is unlawful.
    2. Why withdrawal does not cure it: The deterrent operates from the moment the threat is made, so revoking the order does not restore the confidence it removed.

    What is the current status of the right to practise a profession in India?

    1. The right: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
    2. Permissible limits: Article 19(6) allows reasonable restrictions in the public interest, including professional or technical qualifications prescribed by law.
    3. Entry to the Bar: Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 fixes the qualifications for enrolment, which include Indian citizenship, completion of 21 years of age and a law degree from a recognised university.
    4. The only bars: Section 24A lists the disqualifications, and each of them lapses two years after the disqualifying event.
    5. The gatekeeper: Enrolment is granted by a State Bar Council under Section 6(1)(a), not by the Bar Council of India.
    6. The added filter: The All India Bar Examination must be cleared for a certificate of practice after enrolment.

    Which constitutional provisions govern free expression and entry to a profession?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to protest peacefully.
    2. Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    3. Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations, which covers student bodies and campus collectives.
    4. Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practise a profession.
    5. Article 19(2): Permits restrictions on speech only on eight enumerated grounds, and every restriction must be reasonable.
    6. Article 19(6): Permits reasonable restrictions on the right to a profession, including prescribed qualifications.
    7. Article 14: Bars arbitrary state action, which reaches a statutory body imposing a collective penalty.
    8. Articles 32 and 226: Provide direct recourse to the Supreme Court and the High Courts against the action of a statutory body.

    What exactly did the Bar Council of India direct, and how did it unravel?

    1. The first letter: The Council’s chairperson wrote to the NALSAR Vice Chancellor seeking a report identifying the persons who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign against the Chief Justice of India.
    2. The enrolment bar: The same letter prohibited State Bar Councils from enrolling any 2026 passed out student of NALSAR until further orders.
    3. The two hour reversal: A second communication issued within two hours declared the vast majority of NALSAR students innocent, while retaining the direction to hold an inquiry and submit a report.
    4. The university’s response: NALSAR stated that it would have to examine the constitutionality of such an inquiry.
    5. Full withdrawal: The Council withdrew both letters entirely the following day and closed the proceedings.
    6. The stated reason: The Council accepted that it was not proceeding under Section 24A, and argued that enrolment during a pending inquiry would create a fait accompli.

    Why does the power to enrol sit with State Bar Councils and not the Bar Council of India?

    1. Two tier design: Section 3 creates State Bar Councils and Section 4 creates the Bar Council of India, with distinct functions assigned to each.
    2. The enrolling authority: Section 6(1)(a) makes the admission of persons as advocates on its roll a function of the State Bar Council.
    3. The apex body’s list: Section 7 confines the Bar Council of India to professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils, promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
    4. No enrolment power: None of those provisions gives the Bar Council of India the power to enrol a person as an advocate.
    5. Individual assessment: Every application has to be dealt with independently, and an applicant who meets the statutory requirements is entitled to be enrolled.
    6. Limits of supervision: Section 48B permits directions to State Bar Councils, but a direction cannot create a bar that the Act itself does not contain.

    What are the only statutory grounds on which enrolment can be denied?

    1. Conviction for moral turpitude: Section 24A bars a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
    2. Untouchability offences: A conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 is a separate statutory bar.
    3. Dismissal from service: Dismissal or removal from government employment on a charge involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person.
    4. Time limit: The disqualification lapses two years after the release, dismissal or removal.
    5. Nothing on dissent: The list contains no ground relating to protest, opinion or a campus campaign.
    6. Conduct before enrolment: Such conduct becomes relevant only when it attracts a statutory disqualification, and a peaceful protest or an expression of opinion does not.

    Where does the Bar Council of India legitimately enter the enrolment process?

    1. The carve out: Section 26 requires a State Bar Council’s enrolment committee that proposes to reject an application to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India with a statement of the grounds of refusal.
    2. Binding opinion: Section 26(3) requires the State Bar Council to dispose of the application in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India.
    3. Reasons in writing: Section 26(2) requires the State Bar Council to record its grounds for refusing enrolment in writing.
    4. Only after a proposed refusal: The referral arises only once a State Bar Council has decided to reject an individual application.
    5. No advance freeze: Section 26 does not contemplate a blanket bar on an entire graduating class before any application has been filed.
    6. Removal from the roll: Where a name already on the roll is to be removed for fraud or misrepresentation, the person must first be given a hearing.

    Why do the Council’s disciplinary powers not reach a law graduate?

    1. Chapter V: It deals with disciplinary proceedings, and Sections 35 to 37 cover misconduct by advocates, the powers of the disciplinary committee and appeals from disciplinary orders.
    2. Whom they bind: Those provisions apply only to persons already enrolled on a State roll.
    3. Status of a graduate: A law graduate who has not yet been enrolled is not an advocate.
    4. Consequence: The disciplinary framework does not extend to a student, so a campus protest cannot be treated as professional misconduct.
    5. Effect of the letters: They attempted to add the expression of dissent as a fresh ground of disqualification for enrolment.

    What did the Supreme Court settle when the Council last created a disqualification?

    1. The case: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    2. The rule struck down: The Court invalidated a Bar Council of India rule barring persons above 45 years of age from enrolment.
    3. The reasoning: Rule making power under Section 49 cannot be used to create an additional disqualification that the Advocates Act does not provide.
    4. The jurisdictional holding: Admission of persons to the roll and removal of their names lie within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils.
    5. The parallel: The age bar and the batch bar both add a disqualification by executive direction rather than by statute.

    How did the Court and the legal community respond this time?

    1. Interim protection: A three judge Bench barred the Council from taking coercive action against NALSAR students, faculty and administrators on the basis of the incidents named in the letters.
    2. Explanation sought: The Council was given two weeks to file an affidavit explaining its actions.
    3. The Court’s position: The fundamental right to a profession cannot be threatened for expressing dissent, and students have the right to protest.
    4. Jurisdictional rebuke: The Chief Justice of India described the Council’s intervention as unnecessary interference in a dialogue between the students and himself.
    5. The petitioners’ case: Neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the Rules of Legal Education permits the Council to regulate students’ conduct or to direct universities to inquire against them.
    6. Institutional criticism: The university’s alumni called the letters arbitrary and high handed, and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad asked the Council to act only on facts, due process and a fair inquiry.
    7. Editorial demand: The episode was described as a misuse of statutory power for which the chairperson’s exit is the minimum course correction.

    Does the withdrawal of the directive settle the question it raised?

    1. The case for closure: The letters stand withdrawn, the proceedings are closed, and the 2026 graduates may now seek enrolment in the ordinary course.
    2. The case against closure: A regulator has demonstrated that it will use enrolment as leverage over student speech, and that demonstration survives the withdrawal.
    3. Speed as the problem: The bar was imposed and lifted without any meeting of the full Council, using interim powers meant for supervisory emergencies.
    4. The absent remedy: No accountability attaches to a direction withdrawn before it is tested, so the cost of issuing it is zero.
    5. The deterrent that remains: A student weighing a future campus campaign now knows that entry to the profession can be made the subject of an inquiry.
    6. The unresolved question: Whether a supervisory power over State Bar Councils can ever be used to suspend a statutory function that those councils alone hold.

    What are the major debates surrounding regulatory control over entry to the legal profession?

    1. Supervision against exclusivity: Section 7(1)(g) and Section 48B give the Council supervisory control, while Section 6(1)(a) gives State Bar Councils exclusive power over enrolment.
    2. Rule making against statute: The 1995 ruling confines Section 49 rules to what the Act permits, and successive Council rules have tested that boundary.
    3. The Bar examination question: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College (2023) upheld the All India Bar Examination as a valid precondition for practice, unsettling the earlier view that only Parliament could add entry conditions.
    4. An elected regulator: The Council is elected by practising advocates, which makes independent enforcement of discipline against advocates contested.
    5. Education and practice in one body: The Council both recognises law degrees and regulates practitioners, concentrating academic and professional gatekeeping in a single institution.
    6. Speech of future professionals: How far a professional regulator may police the political expression of persons not yet within its jurisdiction remains untested.
    7. Opening the profession: The 2023 rules permitting foreign lawyers in non litigious matters reopened the question of who defines the boundaries of the profession.

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India

    1. Jurisdictional overreach: The Council repeatedly claims powers that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer, e.g. the rule barring entrants above 45 years of age, struck down in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    2. Decisions by individual direction: Rule 18 interim powers of the chairperson allow directions of general effect without a Council meeting, e.g. the enrolment bar on the 2026 NALSAR batch, issued and withdrawn within a day in August 2026.
    3. Disciplinary delay: Section 36B transfers a misconduct case to the Council if a State disciplinary committee does not conclude it within a year, which pushes complaints further from the complainant, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recorded that this one year limit is routinely missed.
    4. Unverified enrolments: State rolls carry names that cannot be matched to verified degrees, e.g. the verification drive under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015 found large numbers of enrolled advocates who never filed verification papers.
    5. Strikes by the Bar: Court boycotts continue despite a binding ruling against them, e.g. the boycott by advocates in Delhi district courts after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019, which stalled hearings for several days.
    6. Legal education oversight: Approvals of law colleges have outpaced inspection capacity, e.g. the Council imposed a moratorium on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
    7. Collision with university autonomy: The education mandate is used to direct internal university action, e.g. the letter requiring NALSAR to inquire into and report on the students behind a campus campaign, which the university said raised constitutional questions.

    Conclusion

    The Bar Council of India used a supervisory power over State Bar Councils to suspend a function that only those councils hold, and it did so to penalise speech that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise as a disqualification. The withdrawal closed the file without answering the question, because the deterrent created by a regulator that can threaten entry to a profession does not lapse with the letter. What must change is the source of the power: a disqualification can come only from statute, and an interim supervisory order cannot be used to manufacture one.

    Regulation of the Legal Profession in India

    1. About: The legal profession is a statutory self regulating profession governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, which created a single unified Bar for the whole country.
    2. Structure: State Bar Councils enrol and discipline advocates, and the Bar Council of India supervises them and sets professional standards.
    3. Scale: India has more than 15 lakh enrolled advocates and over 1,700 approved law colleges, among the largest legal professions in the world.
    4. Entry route: A five year integrated law degree after school or a three year degree after graduation, followed by enrolment with a State Bar Council and the All India Bar Examination.
    5. Single class of practitioners: The Act abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders and attorneys, leaving advocates as the only recognised class, divided into senior advocates and other advocates.
    6. National law universities: The model began with the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in 1987 and now covers more than 25 such universities.

    Statutory Framework Governing Enrolment of Advocates

    1. Section 3: Constitutes a Bar Council for each State and sets its composition and term.
    2. Section 4: Constitutes the Bar Council of India, with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as ex officio members.
    3. Section 6: Lists the functions of a State Bar Council, including the admission of persons as advocates on its roll under Section 6(1)(a).
    4. Section 7: Lists the functions of the Bar Council of India, including professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g), promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
    5. Section 24: Prescribes the qualifications for admission as an advocate on a State roll.
    6. Section 24A: Prescribes the disqualifications for enrolment and the two year period after which they lapse.
    7. Section 25: Names the authority to which an application for enrolment must be made.
    8. Section 26: Governs disposal of applications, reference of a proposed refusal to the Bar Council of India, and removal of a name obtained by misrepresentation.
    9. Sections 35 to 37: Govern punishment of advocates for professional misconduct, the powers of disciplinary committees and appeals to the Bar Council of India.
    10. Section 48AA: Allows the Bar Council of India or its committees, other than a disciplinary committee, to review any order within sixty days.
    11. Section 48B: Allows the Bar Council of India to give directions to a State Bar Council in exercise of its general supervision.
    12. Section 49: Confers general rule making power on the Bar Council of India to discharge its functions.

    Laws, Acts and Rules Governing the Legal Profession in India

    1. Advocates Act, 1961: Created a unified national Bar, established the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, and consolidated the law on legal practitioners.
    2. Advocates Act, 1961, landmark change: It abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders, attorneys and revenue agents, leaving a single class of advocates with an all India right to practise under Section 30.
    3. Bar Council of India Rules: Framed under Section 49, covering standards of professional conduct and etiquette, legal education and the internal working of the Council.
    4. Bar Council of India Rules, key provisions: Rule 15 gives the chairperson general control and supervision over the Council’s affairs, and Rule 18 allows interim orders in revisional and supervisory matters.
    5. Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008: Govern recognition of law degrees, the five year and three year course structures, and inspection of colleges.
    6. All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010: Made the examination a condition for the certificate of practice for advocates enrolled after 2009.
    7. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Created the National, State and District Legal Services Authorities and the Lok Adalat mechanism for free legal aid.
    8. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines civil and criminal contempt and governs the conduct of advocates before courts.
    9. Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: A conviction under it is a statutory disqualification for enrolment under Section 24A.
    10. Bar Council of India Rules for Registration of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms, 2022, amended in 2023: Permit foreign lawyers to advise on foreign law and international arbitration in non litigious matters.
    11. Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023: Repealed the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 and inserted provisions empowering courts to frame and act against lists of touts.

    Back2Basics: Advocates Act, 1961

    1. Enacted: 1961, on the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee, 1953 and the Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission of India.
    2. Purpose: Consolidated the law relating to legal practitioners and created a single class of advocates for the whole country.
    3. Bodies created: State Bar Councils under Section 3 and the Bar Council of India under Section 4.
    4. Right to practise: Section 30 gives an advocate on a State roll the right to practise before all courts, tribunals and authorities in India.
    5. Senior advocates: Section 16 divides advocates into senior advocates and other advocates, with designation by the Supreme Court or a High Court.
    6. Discipline: Chapter V provides for disciplinary committees, punishment for professional misconduct, and appeals to the Bar Council of India and then to the Supreme Court.
    7. Autonomy: The Bar Council of India is an independent statutory authority and not a department of government.

    Government Initiatives for Legal Education and Access to Justice

    1. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Provides free legal aid to eligible persons under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and organises Lok Adalats for settlement of pending and pre litigation disputes.
    2. Tele-Law: Connects citizens in rural areas to panel lawyers through Common Service Centres for free advice before litigation begins.
    3. Nyaya Bandhu: A pro bono legal services programme that links volunteer advocates with litigants who cannot afford representation.
    4. Legal Aid Defense Counsel System: Provides full time defence counsel at the district level for accused persons who cannot afford a lawyer.
    5. e-Courts Mission Mode Project: Digitises case records, enables virtual hearings and publishes case status through the National Judicial Data Grid.
    6. Nyaya Vikas: Centrally sponsored scheme funding court halls and residential units for judicial officers of district and subordinate courts.
    7. Pan India Legal Awareness and Outreach Campaign: A village level drive by NALSA to inform citizens of their legal entitlements and aid options.

    Key Facts about the Bar Council of India

    1. Established: 1961 under the Advocates Act, 1961, with its headquarters in New Delhi.
    2. Ex officio members: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India.
    3. Elected members: One member elected by each State Bar Council from among its own members.
    4. Office bearers: The chairperson and the vice chairperson are elected by the Council for a term of two years.
    5. All India Bar Examination: Introduced in 2010 and required for the certificate of practice.
    6. First national law university: National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, established in 1987.
    7. Landmark ruling on enrolment: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    8. Landmark ruling on strikes: Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) held that advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts.

    Challenges in Regulating Legal Education and the Legal Profession in India

    1. Uneven quality of law colleges: Approvals have expanded faster than inspection capacity, so degree standards vary sharply, e.g. the moratorium the Council imposed on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
    2. Fake and unverified degrees: Rolls carry entries that cannot be matched to a verified degree, e.g. the verification exercise under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015, in which lakhs of advocates did not submit verification papers.
    3. Cost of entry: Enrolment fees, examination costs and unpaid junior years restrict first generation entrants, e.g. the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) capped State Bar Council enrolment fees at ₹750 for general category candidates and ₹125 for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
    4. Under representation of women: Women form a small share of the senior Bar, e.g. women constitute about 3.4 per cent of senior advocates in India.
    5. Court boycotts and strikes: Work withdrawal continues despite a binding ruling against it, e.g. the Delhi district courts boycott after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019.
    6. Case backlog and delay: Adjournment practice by the Bar contributes directly to pendency, e.g. more than five crore cases were pending across Indian courts as recorded on the National Judicial Data Grid.
    7. Regulatory overlap: Legal education is governed simultaneously by the Council and the University Grants Commission, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recommended a separate body for legal education to end the overlap.

    Way Forward

    1. Codify the limits of supervisory power: Amend Section 48B to state that a direction to a State Bar Council cannot suspend a function that Section 6(1)(a) confers on it.
    2. Require a Council resolution for general directions: Confine Rule 18 interim orders to individual revisional matters and require a full Council decision for any direction of general effect.
    3. Separate legal education from professional regulation: Create a distinct legal education council with academic membership, as recommended by the Law Commission’s 266th Report.
    4. Enforce time bound discipline: Make the one year limit in Section 36B operational through mandatory public reporting of pending complaints and their age.
    5. Publish enrolment data: Require every State Bar Council to publish the number of applications received, decided and refused, with the recorded grounds of refusal.
    6. Protect lawful student expression: Frame a rule under Section 49 stating that lawful expression before enrolment is neither a ground for refusal nor a basis for inquiry.
    7. Create an appellate route: Provide a statutory appeal against general directions of the Bar Council of India, so that every affected person is not forced to approach the Supreme Court.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to India, consider the following statements :
    1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
    2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
    (a) 1 only
    (b) 2 only
    (c) Both 1 and 2
    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Answer: (b)”

  • NCSC to review Union de-reservation proposals of last three years

    The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has decided to comprehensively review all proposals from the Centre over the last three years to dereserve government posts. The decision has exposed a running clash between the Commission and Union departments over the practice of filling reserved vacancies as unreserved ones, particularly in promotion vacancies. The Commission holds that such proposals are often incomplete and fail to show alternate efforts to fill reserved posts.

    What is de-reservation?

    1. Definition: De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved vacancy as an unreserved one, permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
    2. General ban: Department of Personnel and Training rules impose a general ban on dereserving posts, with very specific exceptions.
    3. Direct recruitment exception: A direct recruitment vacancy may be dereserved only where a Group A service vacancy cannot be allowed to remain vacant in public interest.

    What is the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)?

    1. Constitutional body: The NCSC is a constitutional body established under Article 338 to safeguard the interests of Scheduled Castes against exploitation and to ensure their social, economic and educational advancement.
    2. Composition: It consists of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson and three other members appointed by the President.
    3. Advisory role on de-reservation: Any de-reservation proposal must first be examined by the Commission before it proceeds further.

    What is the current status of reservation in India?

    1. Category wise quotas: Scheduled Castes hold 15 per cent, Scheduled Tribes 7.5 per cent, Other Backward Classes 27 per cent for the non creamy layer, and Economically Weaker Sections 10 per cent.
    2. Ceiling position: The judicially settled ceiling on reservation is 50 per cent, subject to exceptions such as the EWS quota upheld by the Supreme Court.
    3. Promotion reservation: Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs is permitted subject to data on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency.
    4. Backlog and de-reservation: Reserved vacancies that remain unfilled generate a recurring pressure to dereserve, which the Commission is now examining across the last three years.

    Constitutional provisions related to reservation:

    1. Article 338: Establishes the NCSC and empowers it to investigate and monitor safeguards for Scheduled Castes, with the powers of a civil court.
    2. Article 16(4): Enables reservation in appointments for backward classes inadequately represented in state services.
    3. Article 16(4A): Enables reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SCs and STs inadequately represented.
    4. Article 335: Requires that SC and ST claims be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
    5. Article 341: Empowers the President to specify the castes deemed Scheduled Castes for a State or Union Territory.

    Why is the NCSC reviewing de-reservation proposals now?

    1. Recurring incompleteness: The Commission found that de-reservation proposals are often incomplete and do not reveal the alternate efforts made to fill the reserved posts.
    2. Consistent rejection: In four of the five Full Commission meetings held since 2024, de-reservation featured high on the agenda, and none of the proposals was agreed to by the NCSC.
    3. Spread of proposals: Proposals came for posts in public sector undertakings and in the Ministries of Law and of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Central Reserve Police Force and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
    4. Objection window extended: Nudging by the Commission led the Department of Personnel and Training to double the time SC and ST Commissions get to object, from two weeks to one month.
    5. Systemic remedy sought: The June 4 Full Commission meeting resolved to examine recurring issues and formulate recommendations for effective implementation of the reservation policy.

    What is the procedure for de-reservation?

    1. First scrutiny: A proposal is examined first by the National Commissions for SCs, STs or OBCs, whichever is applicable.
    2. Committee of Secretaries: It then goes to a Committee of Secretaries of the concerned Department, the Department of Personnel and Training and the Social Justice Ministry.
    3. Final authority in direct recruitment: The final decision rests with the Minister of Personnel and Training.
    4. Weaker check in promotions: For promotion vacancies, the recruiting Department or Ministry retains the final say even though it must submit a proposal to the National Commissions and the Department of Personnel and Training.
    5. Alternatives suggested: The Commission proposed that departments explore deputation or short term contracts to fill reserved vacancies with eligible SC candidates rather than dereserving them.

    What are the major debates surrounding de-reservation?

    1. Public interest versus social justice: The Group A public interest exception is contested where it is used to bypass the effort to find eligible reserved candidates.
    2. Weak promotion safeguard: The Commission’s objection carries less weight for promotion vacancies, where the recruiting Ministry retains the final say.
    3. Efficiency argument: Departments invoke administrative efficiency under Article 335, while the Commission stresses the mandate to fill reserved posts first.
    4. Data transparency: The dispute turns on whether departments disclose the alternate efforts and backlog data that justify de-reservation.

    Conclusion: The NCSC has decided to review all Union de-reservation proposals of the last three years and to formulate recommendations on their recurring shortcomings. The immediate friction is the Commission’s finding that such proposals hide the alternate efforts made to fill reserved posts. The next step is the Commission’s examination of the flagged proposals and its recommendations to secure effective implementation of the reservation policy.

    Back2Basics: National Commission for Scheduled Castes

    1. Governing provision: Article 338 of the Constitution.
    2. Origin: Created in its present form by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which bifurcated the earlier combined Commission for SCs and STs.
    3. Composition: Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and three other members appointed by the President by warrant.
    4. Powers: Investigates and monitors safeguards, inquires into specific complaints, and has the powers of a civil court while inquiring.
    5. Reporting: Submits reports to the President, which are laid before Parliament.

    Way Forward:

    1. Mandatory disclosure: Require every de-reservation proposal to attach the record of alternate efforts and the backlog position.
    2. Strengthen promotion check: Give the Commission a binding role in promotion vacancy de-reservation, not merely a consultative one.
    3. Backlog drives: Conduct special recruitment drives to clear reserved vacancy backlogs before considering de-reservation.
    4. Time bound examination: Use the extended one month window to ensure substantive scrutiny rather than lapse by default.
    5. Deputation and contract routes: Institutionalise deputation and short term contracts to keep reserved posts within the reservation policy.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018 GS2 10m] Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.”

  • Amid din, LS passes Bill to set up panel to select chiefs and members of tribunals

    Why in the news

    The Lok Sabha passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 by voice vote without debate, creating a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) to select chairpersons and members of various tribunals. The Bill follows the Supreme Court striking down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 for violating separation of powers and judicial independence. It reopens the settled question of who controls tribunal appointments, the executive that the tribunals adjudicate against, or an independent body insulated from it.

    What is the National Tribunals Commission (NTC)?

    1. Purpose: The NTC is a proposed statutory body to conduct the selection of chairpersons and members of tribunals through a single, uniform process. It centralises appointments that were earlier run separately for each tribunal.
    2. Composition: It will have a chairperson and four members, two judicial and two technical. A retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court will be eligible to head it.
    3. Seat and scope: It will be headquartered in New Delhi and will prescribe qualifications, selection, appointment, salaries, allowances, tenure, resignation, removal, and other service conditions of tribunal members.
    4. Origin: The Supreme Court itself directed the creation of an independent commission with professional expertise, transparent selection, and an oversight mechanism for appointments.

    What is the current status of tribunal appointments in India?

    1. Statutory basis: Tribunals were introduced through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, which added Part XIV-A and Articles 323A and 323B. They function as specialised adjudicatory bodies outside the regular court hierarchy.
    2. Bodies covered by the Bill: The selection process applies to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
    3. Rationalisation drive: The Union government began rationalising tribunals in 2015 and Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 to that end. Parts of that Act were struck down by the Supreme Court.
    4. Existing safeguard: Judicial review of tribunal decisions by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 remains, since the Court has held this power to be part of the basic structure.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Tribunals

    1. Article 323A: Empowers Parliament to establish administrative tribunals for service matters of public servants.
    2. Article 323B: Empowers appropriate legislatures to set up tribunals for other matters such as taxation, land reforms, and industrial disputes.
    3. 42nd Amendment, 1976: Inserted Part XIV-A and the two tribunal Articles into the Constitution.
    4. Article 226 and Article 227: Vest High Courts with writ jurisdiction and power of superintendence over tribunals, a check the Supreme Court has ruled cannot be ousted.
    5. Article 136: Retains the Supreme Court’s power to grant special leave to appeal against tribunal orders.
    6. Article 50: Directive Principle requiring separation of the judiciary from the executive, the value the appointment dispute turns on.

    Why did the Supreme Court strike down parts of the 2021 Act?

    1. Separation of powers: The Court held that several provisions were contrary to separation of powers, as they gave the executive dominant control over appointments to bodies that adjudicate against the executive.
    2. Judicial independence: Provisions were found to undermine the independence of tribunal members whose tenure and removal the executive influenced.
    3. Conflict with precedent: The provisions were inconsistent with earlier judgments laying down standards for the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members.
    4. Short tenures and search committees: Earlier versions prescribed a four-year term and search-cum-selection committees weighted towards government nominees, which the Court repeatedly rejected as diluting judicial character.

    How does the Bill respond to the Court’s concerns?

    1. Uniform process: The Law Minister stated the Bill brings uniformity to selection and appointment and improves efficiency, transparency, and independence.
    2. Judicial presence: A retired Supreme Court judge or retired High Court Chief Justice heading the commission answers the Court’s demand for professional and judicial expertise in selection.
    3. No jurisdictional change: The Minister clarified the legislation does not alter the jurisdiction of any tribunal, keeping the substantive powers of each body intact.
    4. Institutional oversight: A permanent commission replaces ad hoc, tribunal-by-tribunal appointment machinery, matching the oversight mechanism the Court directed.

    Major debates surrounding tribunalisation in India

    1. Curtailment of ordinary courts: Tribunals divert cases from High Courts, raising the concern that they curtail the jurisdiction and constitutional role of the regular judiciary.
    2. Executive control versus independence: The core dispute is whether the government, a frequent litigant before tribunals, should dominate the appointment and service conditions of members who judge it.
    3. Effectiveness versus multiplicity: Tribunals were meant to reduce pendency, yet vacancies, poor infrastructure, and appeals routed back to constitutional courts have blunted that promise.
    4. Competing rulings: The line of Madras Bar Association cases and Rojer Mathew (2019) repeatedly set standards on tenure and composition that successive laws failed to meet, driving the current Bill.
    5. Access to justice: Whether specialised, low-cost adjudication genuinely widens access, or whether weak tribunals leave litigants worse off than in ordinary courts.

    Challenges to the National Tribunals Commission

    1. Composition balance: Two technical members alongside two judicial members can still tilt selection towards executive preference if the technical members are serving or retired bureaucrats.
    2. Vacancy backlog: A new selection body does not by itself clear the large pending vacancies that have crippled tribunals such as the National Green Tribunal and Debt Recovery Tribunals.
    3. Infrastructure and funding: Tribunals depend on the parent ministry for premises, staff, and budget, which the commission does not address.
    4. Fresh litigation risk: Any residual executive dominance in the composition invites another round of constitutional challenge, extending the cycle of struck-down laws.
    5. Uniformity versus specialisation: A single commission for bodies as varied as the Armed Forces Tribunal and the consumer commission may struggle to weigh domain-specific expertise.
    6. Independence of secretariat: Day-to-day functioning still routes through executive-controlled staff, which can dilute the intended insulation.

    Conclusion

    The central question is not whether tribunals should exist but who controls the people who staff them, since executive dominance over appointments compromises the independence that specialised adjudication requires. The 2026 Bill responds to the Supreme Court’s direction by creating a judicially headed National Tribunals Commission with a uniform process. Its success depends on whether the composition genuinely insulates members from the executive they adjudicate against, and on whether vacancies and infrastructure gaps are addressed alongside the appointment reform.

    What is the Separation of Powers Doctrine?

    1. About: It is the principle that legislative, executive, and judicial functions are distributed among distinct organs so that no single organ concentrates power.
    2. Rationale: It exists to prevent tyranny and protect liberty through mutual checks, and in India it underpins judicial independence as part of the basic structure.
    3. Indian form: India follows a functional, not rigid, separation, with checks and balances rather than watertight compartments, reinforced by Article 50 and judicial review.

    Key Concerns Regarding Separation of Powers in India

    1. Executive encroachment on judiciary: Control over appointments, tenure, and funding of tribunals lets the executive influence bodies meant to be independent.
    2. Delegated legislation: Wide rule-making powers transfer effective law-making to the executive with limited legislative scrutiny.
    3. Judicial overreach: Expansive judicial activism blurs the line between adjudication and policy-making.
    4. Appointment tussles: Recurring friction between the executive and judiciary over the collegium and tribunal selections reflects an unsettled balance.

    Statutory Framework Governing Tribunals

    1. Article 323A: Basis for administrative tribunals in service matters.
    2. Article 323B: Basis for tribunals in taxation, land reforms, and other listed matters.
    3. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Established the Central Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunals.
    4. Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021: Rationalised tribunals and set service conditions, parts of which the Supreme Court struck down.
    5. Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026: Proposes the National Tribunals Commission and repeals the 2021 Act once enacted.

    Back2Basics: Landmark rulings on tribunals

    1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Held that judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded; tribunals are supplementary, not substitutes, for courts.
    2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (Madras Bar Association, 2010): Laid down that tribunal members must have judicial character and that executive dominance in selection is unconstitutional.
    3. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019): Struck down rules on tribunal appointments and service conditions for compromising independence.
    4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021): Reaffirmed minimum tenure and search committee composition standards, directly shaping the 2026 Bill.

    Way Forward

    1. Insulated composition: Weight the selection body towards judicial members and independent experts rather than serving bureaucrats.
    2. Fill vacancies promptly: Use the commission to clear the standing backlog of member vacancies across tribunals on a time-bound basis.
    3. Single nodal ministry: Route tribunal administration and funding through a single, arm’s-length authority to end dependence on the litigating ministry.
    4. Fixed tenure and security: Guarantee tenure, salary, and removal protections consistent with the Supreme Court’s standards to prevent renewed litigation.
    5. Periodic performance audit: Institute an independent review of tribunal pendency, disposal, and infrastructure to keep them a genuine complement to courts.

    “[2018, GS2, 15 marks] How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.”

  • Government and faculty spar over the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026

    Why in the News

    The Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) Bill, 2026 seeks to restructure the governance of the Indian Statistical Institute by converting it from a registered society into a government controlled statutory body corporate. The proposal has sparked concerns over institutional autonomy.

    What is the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI)?

    • Founded: Established in 1931 by Prasanta Chandra (P.C.) Mahalanobis.
    • Premier institution: A leading centre for statistics, mathematics, data science, computer science, quantitative economics and related research.
    • Institution of National Importance: Declared under the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959.
    • Administrative Ministry: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
    • Current governance: Functions as a registered society managed by a representative Governing Council.

    What does the Bill propose?

    • Repeals the 1959 Act: Introduces the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026.
    • Body corporate: Converts ISI from a society into a statutory body corporate with perpetual succession.
    • New governance structure: Replaces the Governing Council with an 11 member Board of Governors.
    • Greater government role: The Board will have a majority of government nominated members, increasing the Centre’s role in administration.

    Why are faculty members concerned?

    • Reduced academic autonomy: Faculty argue that greater government control may affect academic freedom and institutional independence.
    • Lack of consultation: They claim the Bill was drafted without adequate consultation with ISI’s academic community.
    • Demand for scrutiny: Opposition members have sought referral of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance for detailed examination.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) was founded in 1931 by P.C. Mahalanobis.
    • P.C. Mahalanobis developed the Mahalanobis Distance and played a key role in India’s statistical system and economic planning.
    • ISI is an Institution of National Importance under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
    • The Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026 proposes replacing the Governing Council with an 11 member Board of Governors.

    [2023] Consider the following organizations/bodies in India:
    1. The National Commission for Backward Classes
    2. The National Human Commission Rights
    3. The National Law Commission
    4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
    How many of the above are constitutional bodies?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] Only three

    [D] All four