💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • What is Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023?

    Why in the News?

    The Central Government has directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to implement Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This provision seeks to relieve undertrial prisoners (UTPs) by addressing prolonged detention and mitigating prison overcrowding.

    What is Section 479 of the BNSS?

    • Section 479 governs the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner (UTP) can be detained during investigation, inquiry, or trial.
    • It is based on Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
    • It aims to address the prolonged detention of UTPs, ensure their timely release on bail or bond, and maintain fairness and accountability in the judicial process.
    • This section applies to cases where the punishment does not include death or life imprisonment, and introduces clear mechanisms for review and action, thereby mitigating issues like prison overcrowding.

    Key Provisions under Section 479 of BNSS:

    • Eligibility for Bail: Undertrials (UTPs) who have served half of their maximum possible sentence may be released on bail; the court must provide written reasons if they decide to extend detention after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
    • First-Time Offenders: UTPs with no prior convictions who have served one-third of their maximum sentence are eligible for release on bond, aligning with the principle of reformative justice.
    • Superintendent’s Responsibility: Jail superintendents must submit a written application to the court for the release of UTPs upon completion of the applicable detention period (one-third or one-half, depending on eligibility).
    • Exclusions: The provision does not apply to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, and any delay caused by the accused is excluded from the detention period calculation.
    • Limitations for Multiple Offences: Accused individuals facing multiple offences or multiple charges are not covered, ensuring the provision is not misused in complex or repeated criminal cases.
    • Absolute Ceiling on Detention: Detention cannot exceed the maximum imprisonment term prescribed for the offence, preventing indefinite incarceration.
    • Judicial Oversight: Courts must ensure extended detention serves public safety and justice, requiring input from the Public Prosecutor for any continued confinement.
    • Mandatory Review Mechanism: A statutory review process is in place to prevent prolonged undertrial detention and address potential oversights or delays.
    • Safeguard against Misuse: Time delays caused by the accused do not count towards the detention period, ensuring fair application of the law.
    • Focus on Reform and Decongestion: By expediting bail and bond processes for eligible UTPs, the law aims to reduce overcrowding in prisons and uphold reformative objectives.

    PYQ:

    [2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements :​

    1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail.​

    2. During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.​

    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​

  • [7th January 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Collegium and changes — it may still be early days

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q) Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC CSE 2017) 

    Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020) 

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains has always focused on  ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ (2017) and Comparison between judicial systems in India and the UK (2020)

    Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is starting his final working week. During his time leading the Supreme Court Collegium, the team worked hard to fill judicial vacancies but overlooked some important issues.In two years, the Collegium supported free speech online, dignity for all regardless of sexual orientation, and fairness in judicial appointments. 

    Today’s editorial talks about the reform in the Collegium system of India and this content will help you in the Mains answer (GS II) paper to steps taken in reform related to the Judicial system in India.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, two significant developments regarding the Supreme Court of India’s Collegium have emerged – firstly, the interviews for Judicial Candidates and secondly the exclusion of Relatives in Judiciary.

    • The Collegium will now conduct interviews for candidates recommended for High Court elevation, shifting from a reliance on biodata to personal assessments.
    • The Collegium is considering excluding candidates with close relatives who are or have been judges, aiming to reduce nepotism and promote diversity in judicial appointments.

    How is the Collegium system adapting to recent controversies and challenges?

    • Candidate Interviews: The Collegium has decided to conduct interviews for candidates recommended for elevation to High Courts. This step aims to enhance the selection process by allowing decision-makers to engage directly with nominees, thereby improving the assessment of their qualifications.
    • Exclusion of Relatives: The Collegium plans to exclude candidates whose close relatives have served or are currently serving as judges in the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
      • This initiative seeks to promote diversity within the judiciary and reduce concerns about nepotism, although it recognizes that some deserving candidates may be overlooked.
    • Need for Formal Rules: There is a pressing need for a clear set of binding rules governing the Collegium’s functioning. Currently, the system operates without formal regulations, leading to concerns about accountability and transparency. Establishing such rules is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
    What is the Collegium system?

    The Three Judges Cases form the cornerstone of the collegium system in India, which governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary. These cases interpreted the provisions of Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution, dealing with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.

    • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive (President) has primacy in judicial appointments, and the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) opinion is not binding, granting greater power to the executive.
    • Second Judges Case (1993): The court overruled the First Judges Case, establishing the collegium system, where judicial appointments and transfers are decided by the judiciary, led by the CJI and senior judges, ensuring judicial independence.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): The collegium was expanded to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments and CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments, refining the process for transparency and collective decision-making.

    What is the criticism of the Collegium system? 

    • NJAC Act (2014): Parliament attempted to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, the NJAC was struck down in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) as unconstitutional, as it was deemed to compromise the independence of the judiciary.
    • Ongoing Debates: Critics argue that the collegium system lacks transparency, accountability, and an objective process for appointments. Reforms to balance independence with accountability remain a contentious issue.

    What are the potential consequences of leadership changes within the Supreme Court for the Collegium’s future?

    • Impact on Reform Initiatives: New Chief Justices may prioritize different aspects of judicial appointments, influencing how reforms are implemented. A Chief Justice committed to reform could advocate for greater transparency and adherence to established procedures, while a more conservative leader might resist changes.
    • Shifts in Decision-Making Dynamics: The leadership style of incoming Chief Justices can alter the dynamics within the Collegium, affecting how candidates are evaluated and selected. This could lead to variations in collegial discussions and recommendations.
    • Implementation of Existing Rules: The ability to enforce existing legal frameworks related to judicial appointments will depend on the leadership’s willingness to uphold rulings from previous Judges’ cases. Respecting these rulings is crucial for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that the law is followed.

    Way forward: 

    • Formalize Collegium Procedures: Draft and implement clear binding rules to govern the Collegium’s functioning which ensures transparency, accountability, and merit-based judicial appointments while addressing concerns of nepotism and bias.
    • Strengthen Institutional Practices: Institutionalize reforms like candidate interviews, broaden diversity, and adopt technology-driven decision-making to enhance efficiency, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary.

    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-forward-movement-on-four-names-reiterated-by-collegium-headed-by-justice-chandrachud/article68825218.ece

  • The nature of dissent in the Indian judiciary

    Why in the News?

    In the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting opinions often reflect the political views of judges, as they are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. In contrast, dissenting opinions in the Indian judiciary cover a wider range, including political, social, and purely intellectual disagreements

    What is the significance of dissenting opinions?

    • Preservation of Judicial Independence: Dissenting opinions serve as a safeguard for judicial independence, allowing judges to express their disagreements with majority decisions without fear of repercussions. This fosters a culture of open debate within the judiciary, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
    • Shaping Legal Precedents: Dissent can influence future legal interpretations and decisions. Over time, dissenting views may gain traction and become part of the evolving legal landscape, as seen in cases like ADM Jabalpur and P.V. Narasimha Rao, where dissents later informed subsequent rulings.
    • Encouraging Public Discourse: Dissenting opinions can stimulate public discussion and debate about important legal and constitutional issues. They often highlight alternative perspectives that may resonate with societal values or concerns, thereby enriching democratic dialogue.

    How does dissent in the Indian judiciary compare to that in the U.S.?

    • Political Influences: In the U.S., dissent often reflects the political affiliations of justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. For example, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissents align with conservative viewpoints on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
      • In contrast, Indian judges are selected through a collegium system, which aims to reduce political influence on judicial decisions, resulting in dissents that may not necessarily align with current political sentiments.
    • Nature of Dissents: U.S. Supreme Court dissents frequently stem from ideological divides among justices, whereas Indian judicial dissents encompass a broader spectrum, including political, social, and intellectual disagreements.
      • For instance, Justices Khehar and Nazeer in Shayara Bano focused on the social implications of personal law rather than political affiliations.
    • Impact on Law: While both systems recognise the importance of dissent in shaping jurisprudence, Indian dissents have historically led to significant legal changes post-ruling, as seen in cases like Sita Soren where earlier dissents influenced the court’s later position on parliamentary immunity.

    What challenges and criticisms surround judicial dissent in India?

    • Risk of Retaliation: Judges who dissent against majority opinions may face professional backlash or career repercussions. Notable cases include Justice H.R. Khanna, who was superseded as Chief Justice after his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, highlighting potential risks for dissenters within the judiciary.
    • Infrequent Dissent: Despite its importance, dissent is relatively rare in the Indian Supreme Court compared to its potential significance. The Chief Justice often avoids dissenting opinions in constitutional bench cases, which raises concerns about conformity over independent judicial reasoning.
    • Public Perception: Judicial dissent can sometimes be viewed negatively by the public or political entities as undermining judicial authority or coherence. This perception can discourage judges from expressing their dissent openly.

    What are the accountable-related issues? 

    • High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
    • Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
    • Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
    • Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.

     

    What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?

    • Initiation: A removal motion, signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, is submitted and approved by the Speaker or Chairman to initiate the process.
    • Investigation: A three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist) is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
    • Parliamentary Decision: If the committee confirms the charges, the motion is debated in Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal by the President.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutional Support for Dissent: Establish mechanisms to safeguard dissenting judges from career repercussions, such as transparent evaluation criteria and protections for judicial independence, ensuring open debate within the judiciary.
    • Promote Judicial Dialogue: Encourage a culture of constructive dissent by incorporating dissenting opinions into judicial training and fostering recognition of their long-term contributions to legal evolution.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (UPSC IAS/2017)

  • The challenge of holding judges accountable

    Why in the News?

    Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, showing bias against Muslims, has raised concerns about the challenges in holding higher court judges accountable in India.

    Why do the judges need to be accountable?

    • Upholding Judicial Integrity: Judges are the guardians of the Constitution and are expected to exhibit the highest ethical standards to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
    • Safeguarding Democracy: Accountability ensures that the judiciary acts as a fair and impartial arbiter, without overstepping or undermining democratic institutions.
    • Preventing Abuse of Power: Judicial independence is vital, but unchecked power can lead to misconduct or corruption, as seen in cases like Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen.
    • Maintaining Public Confidence: Accountability is critical to reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary, especially in a democracy where the judiciary acts as a check on other branches of government.

    What are the accountable-related issues? 

    • High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
    • Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
    • Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
    • Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.

    What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?

    • Initiation: A removal motion, signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, is submitted and approved by the Speaker or Chairman to initiate the process.
    • Investigation: A three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist) is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
    • Parliamentary Decision: If the committee confirms the charges, the motion is debated in Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal by the President.

    Is there any accountability limitation by the Constitution for the judges? 

    • Article 124(4) and (5): These articles provide for the removal of judges only through impeachment, which is a political and cumbersome process requiring a majority in Parliament.
    • Lack of Disqualification: The Constitution does not explicitly disqualify judges found guilty of misconduct from holding future public office.
    • Insufficient Deterrence: Provisions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, do not offer significant penalties apart from removal, leaving gaps in ensuring judicial accountability.
    • Ambiguity in “Proved Misbehavior”: The term is not clearly defined, leading to challenges in establishing guilt and enforcing accountability.

    Way forward: 

    • Streamlining the Impeachment Process: Simplifying procedures and reducing the threshold for initiating impeachment could make it easier to hold judges accountable.
    • Clear Disqualification Guidelines: Introducing clear guidelines regarding disqualification from future judicial roles following findings of misconduct would reinforce accountability.
    • Public Awareness and Advocacy: Increasing public awareness about judicial accountability issues can foster demand for reform and greater scrutiny of judicial conduct.
    • Legislative Reforms: Revisiting the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to address its limitations and ensure it meets contemporary standards for accountability is crucial for restoring public confidence in the judiciary.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC IAS/2017)

  • Impeachment of Judges

    Why in the News?

    The Opposition in Rajya Sabha is preparing to move a motion for impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge for his controversial remarks inciting communal hatred.

    Impeachment Process for Judges in India:

    About
    • The process involves Parliament passing an address to the President to remove the judge.
    • To pass the motion, two–thirds of the MPs present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha;
      • Must approve it, with a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
    Key Constitutional Provisions
    • Article 124(4): The judge can only be removed by a Presidential order, passed after a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
    • The vote must come from two-thirds of the members present and voting.
    • Articles 218 of the Constitution extends the same rules to High Court judges.
    • The impeachment process ensures judicial independence by maintaining a high bar for removal, limiting political influence.
    Grounds for Impeachment
    • A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be impeached on two grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as per the Constitution of India.
    • Further clarified in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, including:
      • Misuse of office
      • Grave offences that undermine the judge’s integrity
      • Contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.
    What does the process entail? Procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968:

    Initial Step: The impeachment motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.

    Committee Formation: Once the motion is introduced, the Speaker or Chairperson of the respective House forms a three-member inquiry committee:

    1. Headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.
    2. The second member is usually a Chief Justice of any High Court.
    3. The third member is a distinguished jurist, appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.

    Inquiry Process: The committee investigates the charges, cross-examines witnesses, and regulates its procedure.
    The committee may also request a medical test if the charge relates to mental incapacity.

    Outcome: If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dismissed. If found guilty, it will be reported back to the House for further action.

     

    Instances of Impeachment in India:

    • 1993: Justice V Ramaswami (Supreme Court) faced impeachment proceedings on financial impropriety. The motion was unsuccessful despite a guilty finding.
    • 2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) was impeached for corruption but resigned before Lok Sabha could take up the matter.
    • 2015: Justice S K Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court) faced impeachment on charges of sexual harassment, but the committee cleared him in 2017.
    • 2015: Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court) faced impeachment for controversial remarks about reservation but the motion was dropped after the judge expunged the remarks.
    • 2017: Justice C V Nagarjuna (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court) faced impeachment for financial misconduct and victimizing a Dalit judge, but the motion was not pursued.

     

    PYQ:

    [2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (inquiry) Act, 1968.

    2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

    3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 3 only

    (c) 3 and 4 only

    (d) 1, 3 and 4

  • [11th December 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Sambhal and the perils of judicial evasion

    PYQ Relevance:
    Q) What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC CSE 2016)

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains have previously ‘Judicial review’ (in 2016), and ‘religiousness/religiosity and Communalism’ (in 2017).

    In a 2005 paper on ‘judicial inactivism,’ scholar Chad M. Oldfather discussed how courts have a “duty to decide” and how judicial inaction can be just as impactful as judicial action. He argued that failures to fulfill this duty are harder to detect than overreaching decisions, making inaction more concerning. A recent example of judicial deferment is the Supreme Court’s handling of the Sambhal masjid case in Uttar Pradesh. The Court refrained from a final decision, temporarily halting a survey-related civil court proceeding and sending the matter to the Allahabad High Court. 

    Today’s editorial underscores the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the Sambhal masjid case (Uttar Pradesh).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The Court’s order shows, once again, a reluctance to deal with the main issue — it should have taken a clear stand on the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act.

    What were the events leading up to the violence in Sambhal?

    • Survey Controversy: The local civil court ordered a survey of the Sambhal masjid, which heightened tensions among community members. This survey was perceived as an infringement on religious sentiments, leading to protests and unrest.
    • Political Context: The backdrop of communal politics in India, where historical grievances are often invoked, contributed to the volatility of the situation. The mosque’s status became a focal point for various groups, exacerbating tensions.
    • Loss of Lives: The unrest resulting from the survey led to violence and loss of human lives, highlighting the severe implications of judicial decisions that touch on sensitive communal issues.

    How did the judicial system respond?

    • Supreme Court’s Order: The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on proceedings related to the survey and directed the matter back to the Allahabad High Court, effectively deferring a decisive ruling on the issue.
    • Judicial Deferment: This approach reflects a pattern of judicial inaction, where the Court avoids making definitive rulings on contentious issues, opting instead for temporary measures to maintain peace.
    • Failure to Uphold Legislation: Critics argue that the Court’s reluctance to uphold the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which aims to preserve the status quo of places of worship as they existed in 1947, represents a failure to honour legislative intent.

    What are the implications of judicial inquiries and commissions in addressing communal tensions?

    • Limited Effectiveness: Judicial inquiries and commissions often serve as mechanisms for delay rather than resolution, as seen in previous cases like those involving the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and farm laws. They may lead to temporary solutions without addressing underlying legal issues.
    • Erosion of Trust: When courts engage in deferment rather than decisiveness, it can erode public trust in the judiciary’s ability to handle communal tensions effectively.
    • Potential for Inaction: The reliance on committees or inquiries can create a perception that the judiciary is avoiding its duty to decide, potentially emboldening communal actors who seek to exploit legal ambiguities.

    How does this case reflect broader issues of judicial accountability and public trust in the legal system?

    • Judicial Inactivism: The phenomenon described by Chad M. Oldfather highlights that judicial inaction can have significant consequences, often more difficult to detect than overreach. This in-activism can undermine public confidence in judicial integrity.
    • Need for Assertiveness: The Supreme Court’s reluctance to assertively interpret and uphold laws like the Places of Worship Act raises concerns about its commitment to constitutional principles such as secularism and fraternity.
    • Impact on Communal Harmony: Judicial decisions—or lack thereof—play a crucial role in shaping societal dynamics. Inaction on contentious issues can exacerbate communal tensions rather than mitigate them, leading to further unrest and division within society.

    Way forward: 

    • Assertive Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court should proactively address sensitive communal issues by upholding laws like the Places of Worship Act, ensuring that judicial decisions reflect the constitutional values of secularism and fraternity, and prevent further exploitation of legal ambiguities.
    • Timely and Decisive Rulings: To restore public trust, the judiciary must avoid deferring critical cases to lower courts or committees and instead issue clear, binding decisions that resolve underlying legal disputes, thereby maintaining social harmony and reinforcing accountability.

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/sambhal-and-the-perils-of-judicial-evasion/article68970254.ece 

  • The code of conduct judges need to follow

    Why in the News? 

    Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court made comments against the Muslim community at an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s legal cell, which has caused a lot of public criticism.

    What are the key ethical principles outlined in the code of conduct for judges?

    • Majority Rule: Justice Yadav stated that India would function according to the wishes of the majority, referring to Hindus as the “bahusankhyak” (majority) community. He implied that the values taught to children in one community differ significantly from those in another, particularly regarding animal slaughter practices.
    • Critique of Muslim Practices: He criticized certain practices within the Muslim community, such as polygamy and triple talaq, while asserting that Hindus revere women as goddesses. This comparison has been interpreted as a direct attack on Islamic traditions.
    • Response from Legal Community: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms has called for an inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, arguing that his statements violate judicial ethics and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Prominent legal figures have also suggested impeachment proceedings against him.

    How do codes of conduct vary across different jurisdictions and judicial systems?

    • United States: The American Bar Association has established Model Rules of Professional Conduct which emphasize independence, integrity, and impartiality.
    • United Kingdom: The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office oversees judicial behavior, with a focus on maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
    • India: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life serves as a guiding document for judges, emphasizing the need for impartiality and respect for constitutional values.

    What are the consequences for judges who violate the code of conduct?

    • In-House Procedures: Many jurisdictions have internal mechanisms allowing for complaints against judges to be investigated without public embarrassment.
    • Impeachment: In severe cases, judges can be impeached for misconduct, requiring a significant legislative majority to proceed.
    • Public Reprimand or Suspension: Depending on the severity of the violation, judges may receive reprimands or temporary suspensions from their duties.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Establish clearer and more transparent procedures for addressing judicial misconduct, including an independent body to investigate complaints and ensure timely action, thus preserving public trust in the judiciary.
    • Promote Judicial Sensitivity and Training: Implement regular training programs on diversity, impartiality, and the ethical responsibilities of judges to reinforce the importance of maintaining neutrality and respect for all communities, both in and out of the courtroom.

     

    The Opposition in Rajya Sabha is preparing to move a motion for impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge for the same controversial remarks inciting communal hatred.

    Impeachment Process for Judges in India:

    About
    • The process involves Parliament passing an address to the President to remove the judge.
    • To pass the motion, two–thirds of the MPs present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha;
      • Must approve it, with a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
    Key Constitutional Provisions
    • Article 124(4): The judge can only be removed by a Presidential order, passed after a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
    • The vote must come from two-thirds of the members present and voting.
    • Articles 218 of the Constitution extends the same rules to High Court judges.
    • The impeachment process ensures judicial independence by maintaining a high bar for removal, limiting political influence.
    Grounds for Impeachment
    • A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be impeached on two grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as per the Constitution of India.
    • Further clarified in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, including:
      • Misuse of office
      • Grave offences that undermine the judge’s integrity
      • Contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.
    What does the process entail? Procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968:

    Initial Step: The impeachment motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.

    Committee Formation: Once the motion is introduced, the Speaker or Chairperson of the respective House forms a three-member inquiry committee:

    1. Headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.
    2. The second member is usually a Chief Justice of any High Court.
    3. The third member is a distinguished jurist, appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.

    Inquiry Process: The committee investigates the charges, cross-examines witnesses, and regulates its procedure.
    The committee may also request a medical test if the charge relates to mental incapacity.

    Outcome: If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dismissed. If found guilty, it will be reported back to the House for further action.

     

    Instances of Impeachment in India:

    • 1993: Justice V Ramaswami (Supreme Court) faced impeachment proceedings on financial impropriety. The motion was unsuccessful despite a guilty finding.
    • 2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) was impeached for corruption but resigned before Lok Sabha could take up the matter.
    • 2015: Justice S K Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court) faced impeachment on charges of sexual harassment, but the committee cleared him in 2017.
    • 2015: Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court) faced impeachment for controversial remarks about reservation but the motion was dropped after the judge expunged the remarks.
    • 2017: Justice C V Nagarjuna (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court) faced impeachment for financial misconduct and victimizing a Dalit judge, but the motion was not pursued.

     

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Distinguish between laws and rules. Discuss the role of ethics in formulating them. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • [18th November 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: The ‘new’ Justitia and reimagining justice

    PYQ Relevance:
    Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020)

    Mentor’s Comment:  UPSC Mains have continuously focused on some micro themes in the Judiciary like – Judicial Governance (2023-24), major decisions taken by Apex Court, and the issues/challenges associated with Indian Judiciary (in 2021).

    World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index ranks India at 69th out of 139 countries,   reflecting public concerns about corruption and delays within the judiciary. Today’s Editorial talks about the challenges and some of the recent initiatives taken by the Judiciary.

    This Editorial can be effectively used as a ‘case study’ as well as for representing present ‘challenges’ faced by the Indian Judiciary.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The Chief Justice of India unveiled a new statue of Lady Justice at the Supreme Court premises, replacing the earlier version. The new statue features Lady Justice in a saree, without a blindfold, holding scales in one hand and the Indian Constitution in the other.

    What is the Background?

    • Origin of Lady Justice: The modern depiction of ‘lady justice’ is rooted in Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice, characterized by a blindfold (clossed eyes), scales, and a sword.
    • The symbolism of the Blindfold: Introduced during the Renaissance as a satire on corrupt legal systems, it later came to represent impartiality during the Enlightenment, emphasizing justice without bias related to wealth or social status.

    How does this new representation reflect societal demands for justice?

    • Colonial Influence: The British legal system established in India introduced a hierarchical court structure. ‘Lady justice’ became a prominent symbol in Indian courts during this period.
    • Decolonial Intent: The new statue aims to replace colonial symbols with representations more aligned with Indian traditions.
      • Cultural Representation: The statue’s attire is changed to a saree, reflecting Indian heritage.
      • Open Eyes: The removal of the blindfold signifies that justice is not blind. It acknowledges social diversity and the need for nuanced approaches to justice for underprivileged groups.
      • Constitution as Symbol: The sword is replaced with the Constitution, highlighting its supremacy in Indian jurisprudence while maintaining the scales to signify impartiality in weighing evidence.

    What are the implications of it?

    • Controversies Around Statues: Historical controversies surrounding judicial statutes highlight the need for careful consideration of how justice is visually represented. Questions arise about whether justice should embody protest and resistance or reflect lived experiences and struggles.
    • Re-envisioning Justice: There is a call for justice representations to signify virtues such as feminism, anti-caste sentiments, secularism, and judicial independence. The aim is to creatively challenge existing biases within the judiciary while fostering discussions on improving public perceptions without perpetuating new forms of discrimination based on caste or religion.

    Interpretation may differ related to the new statute of Lady justice but the Government should focus on issues related Judiciary in India: 

    What are the challenges related to the judiciary?

    • Judicial Delays: The Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea for a three-year timeline to resolve over five crore pending cases, citing practical challenges due to overwhelming litigation.
    • Revised Memorandum of Procedure: There is an urgent need to finalize this document regarding judge appointments to enhance transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
    • Representation Issues: Less than 25% representation from backward classes, scheduled castes, tribes, and religious minorities exists in higher judiciary roles; women represent less than 15%. Appointments should reflect India’s social diversity.
    • Court Capacity: High Courts operate at only 60-70% capacity, exacerbating case backlogs. The government needs to expedite appointments based on collegium recommendations and fill vacancies in lower courts promptly.
    • Priority Cases: Constitutional validity cases and those concerning individual liberties should be prioritized by the higher judiciary to ensure timely justice delivery.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Judicial Capacity: Expedite appointments in higher and lower courts to address vacancies, enhance infrastructure, and streamline case management systems to reduce pendency.
    • Promote Diversity and Transparency: Finalize the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments, ensuring representation of marginalized communities and women to reflect India’s social diversity and foster inclusivity.

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-new-justitia-and-reimagining-justice/article68879316.ece#:~:text=The%20addition%20of%20the%20open,India%20in%20her%20left%20hand.

  • Tackle the issue of adjournments, case pendency

    Why in the News?

    President Droupadi Murmu has called for an end to court delays. In the District Judiciary Conference, she said that frequent postponements make it hard for poor and rural people to seek justice, as they worry cases will take too long to resolve.

    Primary Causes of Case Pendency and Frequent Adjournments in Indian Courts:

    • Judge-Population Ratio: India has a low judge-to-population ratio, with only 21 judges per million people as of 2024, far below the Law Commission’s recommended 50 per million.
    • Vacant Judicial Positions: Delays in filling judicial vacancies lead to understaffed courts, with 30% vacancies in High Courts, adding pressure on the existing judges.
    • Additional Judicial Charges: Judges often handle multiple courts or specialized responsibilities, detracting from their ability to focus on primary cases and adding to delays.
    • Complex Case Load: Courts are burdened by multiple types of cases, including civil, criminal, constitutional, and appeals, many of which end up in higher courts, leading to severe backlogs.
    • Lack of Judicial-Impact Assessment: New laws increase the caseload, but without assessing the impact on court infrastructure, staffing, and resources, exacerbating delays.
    • Delay in Witness Availability: Witnesses are often not available on time, which postpones court hearings and impacts trial timelines.

    How can technology be leveraged to reduce case pendency?

    • Digitization of Case Records: Electronic records reduce administrative delays in case filing, retrieval, and transfer between courts.
    • AI-Powered Case Management Systems: AI can assist in case prioritization, track progress, and predict possible delays, enabling judges and clerks to streamline schedules more effectively.
    • E-Courts and Video Conferencing: Virtual hearings can expedite proceedings, especially for remote cases or minor disputes, saving travel and scheduling time.
    • Automation of Routine Processes: Automating administrative tasks like case status updates, notifications, and scheduling can reduce clerical delays and improve transparency for litigants.
    • Data Analytics for Judicial Insights: Predictive analytics can help in understanding case patterns, enabling policymakers to make data-driven decisions on judicial staffing and resources.

    What reforms are necessary to improve judicial efficiency and reduce backlog? (Way forward)

    • Filling Vacancies and Enhancing Judge Numbers: Quick action on filling judicial vacancies is critical, along with increasing sanctioned positions to meet the demands of the population and growing caseload.
    • Implementing Judicial-Impact Assessments: Adopting the recommendations of the Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee for pre-legislative impact assessment would ensure adequate resources accompany new laws.
    • Expanding Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Scaling up mediation centers and incentivizing ADR methods can resolve disputes outside court, decreasing the burden on the judiciary.
    • Dedicated Special Courts: Establishing well-staffed, specialized courts for specific categories (e.g., economic offenses, family disputes) would help reduce strain on regular courts.
    • No Additional Charge Policy for Judges: Assigning a single focus area per judge ensures concentration on cases without undue burdens, leading to higher efficiency and better judgment quality.
    • Periodic Judicial Training: Regular training on case management and technological tools can empower judges and court staff to adapt to evolving needs, reducing inefficiencies.

  • New ‘Lady Justice’ Statue

    justice

    Why in the News?

    • The Chief Justice of India unveiled a new ‘lady justice’ statue at the Supreme Court.
      • This new statue replaces the previous version and is clothed in a saree, holds scales in one hand, and the Indian Constitution in the other, with its eyes uncovered—symbolizing that justice sees all equally.

    About the Lady Justice Statue:

    Details
    History
    • Introduced during colonial rule, becoming a common feature in Indian courthouses.
    • Depicted in the Calcutta High Court (1872) and the Bombay High Court, with variations in blindfold status.
    Modern Depiction In 2024, a new 6-foot statue was unveiled by the Supreme Court of India, created by Vinod Goswami.
    Symbolism Absence of the blindfold signifies that “law is not blind,” promoting the idea of equality in justice.
    Origins Traces back to Greek mythology with Themis and Roman mythology with Justitia, traditionally depicted with a blindfold, scales, and a sword.
    Notable Changes
    • Symbolizes that “the law is not blind,” emphasizing equality in justice.
    • Adorned in a Saree, reflecting Indian heritage and tradition.
    • Holds a copy of the Indian Constitution instead of a sword, representing rights and fairness.
    • Continues to hold scales, emphasizing the need for balance in weighing evidence and arguments.
    • Breaks free from colonial influences, aligning with contemporary Indian values.
    • Signifies a justice system that is aware, inclusive, and rooted in constitutional principles.
    • Positioned in the Judges’ Library of the Supreme Court, highlighting its significance in Indian jurisprudence.