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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • Supreme Court says NO to Sealed Cover suggestions

    seal

    Central idea: The Supreme Court has said it did not want to accept in a “sealed cover” the Centre’s suggestions on who could be the members of a committee the court had proposed to assess the market regulatory framework and recommend measures, if any, to strengthen it in the wake of the Adani-Hindenburg affair.

    What is the news?

    • The article is about a public interest petition filed in the Supreme Court that calls for the establishment of an expert panel to strengthen regulatory mechanisms related to the Adani Group.
    • The petitioners argue that the Adani Group has been able to bypass regulatory hurdles through its influence on government officials and agencies.

    What is Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?

    • It is a practice used by the Supreme Court and sometimes lower courts, of asking for or accepting information from government agencies in sealed envelopes that can only be accessed by judges.
    • A specific law does not define the doctrine of sealed cover.
    • The Supreme Court derives its power to use it from Rule 7 of order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules and Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

    Need for sealed cover jurisprudence

    There are several reasons why sealed cover jurisprudence is used-

    • National security: For example, in cases involving sensitive information related to defense or intelligence agencies, the disclosure of such information in open court proceedings could compromise national security.
    • Individual privacy: It is also used to protect the privacy in cases involving sensitive personal information. In such cases, the court may allow the submission of such information in a sealed cover to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.
    • Protect commercial or trade secrets: In cases involving disputes between companies, the disclosure of confidential information related to their business operations could harm their commercial interests.

    Nature of the power: Upholding Secrecy

    • If the Chief Justice or court directs certain information to be kept under sealed cover or considers it of confidential nature, no party would be allowed access to the contents of such information.
    • There is an exception to this if the Chief Justice himself orders that the opposite party be allowed to access it.
    • It also mentions that information can be kept confidential if its publication is not considered to be in the interest of the public.
    • As for the Evidence Act, official unpublished documents relating to state affairs are protected and a public officer cannot be compelled to disclose such documents.

    Grounds of such secrecy

    Other instances where information may be sought in secrecy or confidence is when its publication:

    1. Impedes an ongoing investigation of cases related to national security
    2. Details that are part of the police’s case diary or
    3. Breaches the privacy of an individual

    Prominent cases of sealed jurisprudence

    Sealed cover jurisprudence has been frequently employed by courts in the recent past.

    (1) Rafale Deal

    • In the case pertaining to the controversial Rafale fighter jet deal, a Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi in 2018, had asked the Centre to submit details related to deal’s decision making and pricing in a sealed cover.
    • This was done as the Centre had contended that such details were subject to the Official Secrets Act and Secrecy clauses in the deal.

    (2) Bhima Koregaon Case

    • In the Bhima Koregaon case, in which activists were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
    • The Supreme Court had relied on information submitted by the Maharashtra police in a sealed cover.

    Issues with such jurisprudence

    • Undermines open justice: This practice appears to be unfavorable to the principles of transparency and accountability of the Indian justice system.
    • Erodes public faith: It stands in contrast to the idea of an open court, where decisions can be subjected to public scrutiny.
    • Increases arbitrariness: It is also said to enlarge the scope for arbitrariness in court decisions, as judges are supposed to lay down the reasoning for their decisions.
    • Unfair trials: Besides, it is argued that not providing access to such documents to the accused parties obstructs their passage to a fair trial and adjudication.

    Way forward

    • Conduct an independent and thorough investigation: Inquire into the allegations raised in the petition, and take appropriate legal action against the Adani Group if they are found to have violated environmental regulations.
    • Establish an expert panel as suggested by the petitioners: To review the regulatory framework and suggest measures to strengthen it. The panel should include experts from various fields, including environmental science, law, and economics.
    • Ensure transparency and accountability in the regulatory process: Foster a culture of environmental awareness and responsibility among businesses by promoting sustainable and eco-friendly practices. This could involve providing incentives and support to companies that adopt such practices.
    • Review the use of sealed cover jurisprudence: Ensure that it is used judiciously and only in cases where it is necessary to protect sensitive or confidential information.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • 73rd establishment day of Supreme Court

    supreme court

    The Supreme Court of India is hosting its celebration of the 73rd anniversary of its establishment today.

    Why in news?

    • This year’s event is being aired on social media platforms and will witness Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who is of Indian origin, as the chief guest.

    When was the Supreme Court founded?

    • On January 28, 1950, two days after India became a sovereign democratic republic, the Supreme Court of India came into being.
    • The first CJI of India was H. J. Kania.
    • The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which was the home to the Federal Court of India for 12 years preceding the Supreme Court’s establishment.
    • The Parliament House was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the court acquired its own present building with lofty domes and its signature spacious colonnaded verandas in 1958.

    History of established

    • In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act 1861 was enacted to create high courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the sadar adalats in presidency towns in their respective regions.
    • These new high courts had the distinction of being the highest courts for all cases till the creation of the Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935.
    • The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeals against judgment of the high courts.

    Premise of the Supreme Court

    • In 1958, when the court shifted its premises, the building was shaped to project the image of scales of justice, in the central wing.
    • In 1979, two new wings – the East wing and the West wing – were added to the complex. In all, there are 19 Courtrooms in the various wings of the building.
    • The Chief Justice’s Court is the largest of the Courts located at the Centre of the Central Wing.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Back in news: Collegium System

    collegium

    The Centre has told the Supreme Court that it would soon clear five names that were recommended by the collegium for appointment of judges in the apex court.

    What is Collegium System?

    • The Collegium of judges is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • It does not figure in the Constitution, which says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President and speaks of a process of consultation.
    • In effect, it is a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.
    • After some judges were superseded in the appointment of the CJI in the 1970s, and attempts made subsequently to effect a mass transfer of High Court judges across the country.
    • Hence there was a perception that the independence of the judiciary was under threat. This resulted in a series of cases over the years.

    Evolution: The Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
    • However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

    • Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
    • When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
    • In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
    • However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

    Need for Collegium System

    • Collegium system increases secrecy: Ruma Pal, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, stated that this system is one of the best kept secret in the country. It kept secret within the four walls of the body for proper and effective functioning of the institution that makes the system opaque.
    • Political non-interference: The collegium system makes Judiciary independent from the politics. It separates the judiciary from the influence of executive and legislative. With the Govt’s influence judiciary can work without any fear and any sort of favour. This ensures the regulation of the doctrine of separation of power.
    • Ensures merit: The executive organ is not specialist or does not have the knowledge regarding the requirements of the Judge as comparative to the CJI. Collegium system ensures that the deserving one is sitting in the position of the Judge in Supreme Court.

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it with a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Criteria: Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge.

    A critical assessment

    • No guidelines framework: This system does not provide any guidelines in selecting the candidates for the judge position of the Supreme Court because of which it leads to wide scope for the nepotism and favoritism.
    • No checks and balances: This system gives the immense power to Judiciary to appoint Judges, so the check on the excessive powers would not be ensured and misuse of powers can be done.
    • Judiciary is nowhere accountable: The collegium system is not accountable to any administrative body that may lead to wrong choice of the candidate while overlooking the right candidate.
    • Huge workload leaves no room: Already there are many cases pending in the Court, they are having limited time the power given to them for the appointment would lead to burden to Judiciary.
    Former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, are worth-quoting:

    Judicial commissions, advisory Committees and procedures for consultation [with the Chief Justice] will be useless unless there exists, among the politicians of all parties, a realization that the interest of the community requires that neither political nor personal patronage nor a desire to placate any section of a society, should play any part in making judicial appointments.

    Some feasible measures that can be incorporated

    • Ensure non-vetoing representatives: To ensure the effectiveness of this mechanism the commission should be representative in nature comprising members of the executive, legislature, judiciary, legal profession and lay persons.
    • Info share in public domain: In addition, it should be ensured that the commission uses a system which is transparent and open to public scrutiny.

    Way ahead

    • In respect of appointments, there has been an acknowledgment that the “zone of consideration” must be expanded to avoid criticism that many appointees hail from families of retired judges.
    • The status of a proposed new memorandum of procedure, to infuse greater accountability, is also unclear.
    • Even the majority opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegiums’ resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

    Conclusion

    • All mechanisms for judicial appointment may have some advantages and disadvantages and therefore, no particular system can be treated as the best system.
    • Despite this, in order to maintain public confidence in the appointment system and to ensure judicial independence the commission system is perhaps a very effective mechanism for judicial appointment.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Who is a Puisne Judge, and what does the term mean?

    While recommending two names for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court, the Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said that the collegium had taken into “consideration the seniority of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges…”

    Who are Puisne Judge?

    • According to the dictionary, the word puisne has French origins, which means “later born” or younger.
    • It is pronounced / “puny”, the English word that means small or undersized.
    • Puisne is almost always used in the context of judges, and essentially denotes seniority of rank.
    • The term puisne judge is used in common law countries to refer to judges who are ranked lower in seniority, i.e., any judge other than the Chief Justice of that court.

    Now again, what is common law?

    • Common law is the body of law that is created by judges through their written opinions, rather than through statutes or constitutions (statutory law).
    • Common law, which is used interchangeably with ‘case law’, is based on judicial precedent.
    • The United Kingdom (UK) and the Commonwealth countries, including India, are common law countries.

    Legal reference to Puisne Judges

    In the Third Judges Case ruling in 1998, one of the two cases that led to the evolution of the collegium system, the Supreme Court clarified that-

    • The CJI must make a recommendation to appoint a Judge of the Supreme Court and to transfer a Chief Justice or puisne Judge of a High Court in consultation with the four seniormost puisne Judges of the Supreme Court.

    Is a “puisne judge” in India the same as in the UK?

    • In the UK, puisne judges are judges other than those holding distinct titles.
    • The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1877 defined a “puisne judge” as any judge of the High Court besides the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls.
    • In India, all judges have the same judicial powers.
    • As the seniormost judge of a court, the Chief Justice has an additional administrative role.
    • In India, there is a reference to a puisne judge only while considering the order of seniority for appointments, elevations to High Courts, etc., but it does not have a bearing on the exercise of a judge’s judicial power.

    What is the recent context?

    • The Supreme Court collegium recommended current Chief Justices of the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts respectively, for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court.
    • While giving reasons for its recommendation, the collegium said that the decision was made taking “into consideration the seniority of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges in their respective parent High Courts.
    • This was done because seniority is one of the several criteria that are considered while making appointments to the higher judiciary.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Under Constitution, law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all

    law

    Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that gave the basic structure doctrine, saying it set a bad precedent and if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it would be difficult to say ‘we are a democratic nation’.

    What did the SC say?

    • Vice-President’s public criticism of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) judgment may be seen as comments by a high constitutional authority against “the law of the land” (Art. 141).
    • That is, as long as the NJAC judgment, which upholds the collegium system of judicial appointments, exists, the court is bound to comply with the verdict.
    • The Parliament is free to bring a new law on judicial appointments, possibly through a constitutional amendment, but that too would be subject to judicial review.

    What is Article 141?

    • Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
    • The law declared has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which, the case is decided.
    • This article forms the basis of Doctrine of Precedent in India.

    What has the VP accused the judiciary of?

    • Dilution of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Vice-President had remarked that judicial review, as was done in the case of the NJAC law, diluted parliamentary sovereignty. He had used terms like “one-upmanship”.
    • Curb on Legislature: The Vice-President had said he did not “subscribe” to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973 which limited the Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution.
    • Disregard to the mandate of people: Dhankhar said no institution can wield power or authority to neutralise the mandate of people.

    Notes for Aspirants

    A classic observation in this regard was made by Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri in State of Madras versus V.G. Row (1952).  Justice Shastri’s words were reproduced by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar in his lead opinion for the Constitution Bench in the NJAC case in October 2015.

    (1) Actual nature of Judicial Review

    • Justice Shastri said judicial review was undertaken by the courts “not out of any desire to tilt at legislative authority in a crusader’s spirit, but in discharge of a duty plainly laid down upon them by the Constitution”.
    • The Kesavananda Bharati verdict (1973) had made it clear that judicial review is not a means to usurp parliamentary sovereignty.
    • It is a “system of checks and balances” to ensure constitutional functionaries do not exceed their limits.

    (2) Limitations to Article 368

    • Article 368 postulates only a ‘procedure’ for amendment of the Constitution.
    • The same could not be treated as a ‘power’ vested in the Parliament to amend the Constitution so as to alter the ‘core’ of the Constitution, which has also been described as the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

    Back2Basics: Doctrine of Precedent

    • Any judicial system’s structure places a high priority on the notion of precedent.
    • It suggests that a judgement made by a court at the top of the judicial food chain binds courts below it.
    • According to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, all lower courts must abide by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law.
    • Similar to this, a State’s High Court’s decision is binding on all Lower Courts within that state, and a division bench of a State High Court’s ruling is binding on the Justices sitting singly in that High court.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Supreme Court’s ‘Basic Structure’ verdict set bad precedent: VP

    court

    The Vice-President while addressing the 83rd Conference of Presiding Officers said that the Kesavananda Bharati case judgment of 1973 set a bad precedent by seeking to establish judicial supremacy.

    Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

    • The Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
    • The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case.
    • The SC in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.
    • The Court asserted through the Basic Structure doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values.
    • Key outcomes were:
    1. Judicial Review: The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which held that constitutional amendments through Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review, but only if they could affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’.
    2. Exceptions to Judicial Review: At the same time, the Court also upheld the constitutionality of the first provision of Article 31-C, which implied that amendments seeking to implement the Directive Principles, which do not affect the ‘Basic Structure,’ shall not be subjected to judicial review.

    Why are we discussing it now?

    Ans. Centre vs. Judiciary Tussle

    • The doctrine forms the basis of power of the Indian judiciary to review and override amendments to the Constitution of India enacted by the Parliament.
    • Since few days, Judiciary and Executive are at loggerheads.
    • In political sphere, there is a greater resentment against the SC verdict striking down the NJAC Act.
    • Comments over appointment/transfer of judges in non-transparent manner has become a very common.

     

    National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC)

    • The NJAC was a body that was proposed to make appointments of Chief Justices, Supreme Court judges, and High Court judges in a more transparent manner as compared to the existing collegium system.
    • It sought to replace the Collegium System.
    • It was proposed via the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014.
    • The bill was passed by both the houses; Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and also received the President’s assent.
    • The commission was established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014.
    • The Act proposed that the members of NJAC would be composed of members from the legislative, judicial, and civil society.

     

    Reasons behind VP’s harsh comments

    Ans. Parliamentary Supremacy (Mandate of the People) overpowers Basic Structure

    • VP said that in a democratic society, “the basic” of any “basic structure” has to be the supremacy of the mandate of the people.
    • Thus the primacy and sovereignty of Parliament and legislature is inviolable.
    • He said all constitutional institutions — judiciary, executive and legislature— are required to remain confined to their respective domains and conform to the highest standards of propriety and decorum.
    • He said the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and deal with legislation should not be subject to any other authority.

    Conclusion

    • After analyzing both NJAC and the collegium system, it can be inferred that neither of the methods is complete and both lack certain aspects.
    • Many former judges and legal experts are supporting the NJAC.
    • However, legal jurists are divided on NJAC, with some supporting it while others calling for amendments to the Act.
    • It is quite evident that neither the collegium system nor the NJAC is accurate; both have some shortcomings.

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Government Litigation

    cases

    Context

    • Much has been said about why we have a staggeringly high number of cases that constitute pendency or cases that are undecided in the court system. Pendency or cases pending in courts have been a source of agony for litigants, lawyers and judges alike. In 2018, the Law Commission of India, in its 230th report, noted that the government is the biggest litigant in the system.

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    Ratio: Number of Judges serving the population

    • India has 21 judges for every million people: India has a terribly low number of judges serving a very large population to be more precise, India has about 21 judges for every million people, as the government recently informed the Rajya Sabha.
    • Comparatively in China: China has about 159 judges for every million people.

    What is cause of concern for the government?

    • Pendency impacts governance and weakens law and order: It is a cause of concern for the government since an arduous dispute resolution system adversely impacts governance and weakens law and order in any country.
    • Government is the largest litigant: Our government has been seized by the burdens of the justice system for long, and is acutely aware of its own role in contributing to the number of cases that enter the courts and remain to be decided.

    Efforts taken by the Government to reduce its litigation

    • Government is well aware: The government has been cognisant of its role in contributing to litigation simply by being the biggest litigator in the courts.
    • Action plan in response to large number of Government litigation: On June 13, 2017, the department of justice of the Government of India, released an Action Plan to reduce Government Litigation. The action plan was in response to the fact that 46 per cent of the total pending cases in the court system pertains to the government.
    • Legal Information Management Briefing System (LIMBS): In 2015, they started the rather aptly named LIMBS project that intends to connect 55 ministries and their departments for litigation management. Aptly named, for it seeks to connect the various limbs of governance of our state. As on January 3, LIMBS shows that there are 6,20,000 cases involving the government pending before the court system.
    • National Litigation Policy (NLP), 2010: The status report to the NLP, 2010, was prepared because it is based on the recognition that the government and its various agencies are the predominant litigants in the courts and tribunals in the country. And, hence, it aimed to transform the government into an efficient and responsible litigant.

    Is all its litigation is initiated by the government?

    • To be fair to the government, not all its litigation is initiated by it.
    • For instance, the government is the catalyst in inter-departmental litigation (between wings of the government) and routine appeals in service matters.
    • However, citizens trigger writ jurisdiction of the courts and file appeals in criminal cases. These also constitute a segment of cases involving the government being heard at various high courts and the Supreme Court.
    • So, while the government can control some of the litigation it is involved in, it is not the catalyst in certain classes of cases that involve it.

    Way ahead

    • Insights provided by the Vidhi Centre: The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in its report on Government Litigation published in 2018, provides great insights into where the government can and cannot control the litigation it is party to.
    • Where Government control its litigation: For instance, the government’s 2010 National Litigation Policy (NLP) recognises that service matters should not be normally appealed and only cases which involve questions of constitutional interpretation should be pursued all the way till the Supreme Court. The government should implement this reform suggested by its own policymakers.
    • Reasons to reduce the litigation: There are many good reasons to reduce litigation that involves the government. Reducing the burden on the courts is a prime reason. As Vidhi 2018 notes, the costs involved in pursuing litigation eat into public funds. And a court battle between the individual and the state is also a battle of unequals.

    Conclusion

    • What we need to address the overburdened court system is for the largest litigant to use the court system more efficiently and cautiously. This would be a tremendous start to addressing the problem of pendency. Appointing more judges would be a massive step to helping more dispute resolution as well.

    Mains question

    Q. Pendency of cases haunts Indian judiciary for a very long time. While there are multiple reasons for pendency, it is said that Government is the largest Litigant discuss. Enlist what efforts are taken by the government to reduce its litigation?

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Appointment of Judges: A case of confrontation between the Centre and judiciary

    Appointment

    Context

    • Recently, there has been confrontation between the Centre and judiciary on the interpretation of Article 124 (2) and 217 (1) of the Constitution.

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    Provisions related to the appointment of judges to the supreme court and high court

    • Article 124 (2): It highlights that every judge of the Supreme Court will be appointed by the president after consultation with such of the judges (in particular, the chief justice) of the Supreme Court and of the high courts in the states as necessary.
    • Article 217 (1): Similarly, for high courts, Article 217 (1) highlights that every judge of a high court will be appointed by the president after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the governor of the state, and the chief justice of the high court.
    • Judicial independence and Collegium system: Judicial interpretation in SP Gupta vs Union of India (1981), The Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India (Second Judges case) (1993) and Article 143(1) vs Unknown (Third Judges Opinion) (1998) has further evolved the principle of judicial independence and led to a collegium system for recommending judges.
    • Role of central government: Currently, the Centre can accept or reject recommendations made by the collegium system however, if a recommendation was reiterated, the government was obliged to accept it.

    Appointment

    What the ongoing tussle is all about?

    • More recently established consensus has given way to a stalemate, as the Centre stalls recommendations reiterated by the Collegium.
    • The Supreme Court pulled up the government for not following timelines laid down in the Second Judges Case.
    • The Standing Parliamentary Committee on Law and Personnel has also highlighted its disagreement with the Department of Justice that the time for filling vacancies cannot be indicated.

    Appointment

    What will be the impact of this tussle?

    • Decline in the capacity of India’s judicial system: The net effect of this historic tussle between the independent judiciary and overweening Centre has been a decline in the capacity of India’s judicial system
    • Vacancies in higher judiciary: There were approximately three vacancies (of 34) in the Supreme Court, along with about 381 (of 1,108) vacancies for judges in the high courts.
    • In lower judiciary: The lower judiciary had about 5,342 (of 24,631) seats vacant, accounting for 20 per cent of its capacity.
    • Impact on judicial efficiency: Such vacancies, particularly in the high courts of Bombay, Punjab & Haryana, Calcutta, Patna and Rajasthan are bound to have an impact on judicial efficiency (with about four crore cases pending, as of August 2022)

    Appointment

    A study: Process of appointment of judges in other countries and by political institutions

    • In Italy: Here, appointments to the Constitutional Court are made by the president, the legislature and the Supreme Court, with each entity allowed to nominate five judges.
    • In US: Supreme Court justices are nominated (for life) by the president and then approved by Senate via a majority vote. Whereas, the state governor appoints state judges based on recommendations provided by a merit commission.
    • In Germany: The German Constitutional Court is appointed by the Parliament (each House gets four appointments in each of the Court Senates) with a supermajority vote (2/3). Naturally, this can lead to a partisan judiciary.
    • In Iraq: All judges are graduates of a Judicial Institute, with all applicants undergoing written and oral tests, along with an interview with a panel of judges.
    • In Japan: The Supreme Court Secretariat controls lower-level judicial appointments, along with their training and promotions.
    • Judicial elections to enhance the accountability of judiciary: Judicial elections have also been utilised to enhance the accountability of the judiciary a variety of states in the US using elections for judicial appointments to the State Supreme Courts.
    • Judicial councils: Other countries have experimented with judicial councils (often comprising of existing judges, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, members of the bar association, laymen etc)

    Appointment

    Appointments through Judicial Commission

    • Centres push Judicial Commission: for Recently, the Centre pushed for judicial appointments to be conducted via a Judicial Commission (National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014).
    • Supreme court says collegium system open to greater transparency: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act (2014) with a 4:1 majority, while highlighting that it was open to greater transparency in the collegium system in particular, making the collegium more transparent, fixing eligibility criteria for appointing judges and debating whether an empowered secretariat was required to appoint judges.

    In this scenario what are suggested reforms?

    • Empower secretariat to select and recommend candidates: The Collegium system can continue; however, a secretariat may be empowered to select and recommend candidates, with the Executive continuing to hold power to appoint judges.
    • Greater representation of our society in the judiciary: The secretariat could be staffed with current judges, members of the bar association, representatives of the law ministry and laymen and should push for greater representation of our society in the judiciary. There were only three women and two SC judges in the Supreme Court.
    • New Court of appeal: Beyond judicial appointments, there is a clear need for having a new Court of Appeal (refer PIL by V Vasanthakumar). The Supreme Court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal against orders in high courts (Bihar Legal Society vs Chief Justice of India, 1986) the Supreme Court should not be hearing bail applications.
    • Federal court of Appeal: Instead, as recommended by the Law Commission, we need to have a Federal Court of Appeal, with branches in major metros.
    • Transform Supreme court into constitutional court: The Supreme Court should be transformed into a Constitutional Court (via a constitutional amendment) doing this would mean fewer cases (about 50, anecdotally) being kept pending at the highest level.
    • Defined retirement age for all judges: There need a push for a defined retirement age, say 65, for all judges, whether at a high court or Supreme Court level post retirement, there should also be a mandatory cooling off period for judges to be nominated to roles in government.

    Conclusion

    • Judicial independence continues to be important for the health of India’s democracy. A credible and impartial system of appointing judges is necessary to achieve judicial independence. Any appointment must ensure judicial accountability, fostering a judiciary which, at an individual and systemic level, is independent from other branches of government.

    Mains Question

    Q. What is the process of appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges? What is the Government’s position on the appointment of judges? What measures are suggested for judicial appointments?

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

     

  • Hurdles in Judicial Infrastructure Upgrade

    Judicial

    Context

    • With every new Chief Justice, India’s judicial infrastructure returns to the spotlight. It was Justice S.H. Kapadia who in 2010, first tried to have a systematic plan to examine the conditions of existing infrastructure and realize the future needs of district judiciary.

    Attempt at judicial Infrastructure upgrade from Judiciary

    • Magistrate infrastructure: We have had Justice T.S. Thakur publicly lament the poor conditions in which magistrates’ function.
    • Vacancy in district judiciary: Then Justice Ranjan Gogoi successfully streamlined filling up of vacancies in district judiciary.
    • National judicial infrastructure authority: Justice N.V. Ramana initiated a discussion on creation of a national judicial infrastructure authority, which has been rejected.
    • Strengthening district judiciary: And now we have Justice D.Y. Chandrachud raising the issue of strengthening the district judiciary.

    Judicial

    Attempt of Government of India in upgrading Judicial infrastructure

    • Allocation of funds: The Centre has been attempting to improve infrastructure at the district level in a consistent manner by allocating funds.
    • Centrally sponsored schemes: Since 1993-94, a centrally sponsored scheme (CSS) of the Union government has tried to address the issue of bringing judicial infrastructure up to par.
    • Contribution from states: Through the scheme, the Centre has been earmarking funds with contributions from respective state governments in the ratio of 60:40 (90:10 for North-eastern states and union territories), including monitoring progress of initiated projects.
    • No improvement in district courts: Despite the scheme spearheaded by the Ministry of Law and Justice, there hasn’t been any considerable improvement in the physical state of our district courts, leaving successive Chief Justices to lament about the poor state of affairs.

    Reasons for non-progress in judicial Infrastructure

    • Non-utilization of funds: Most of the funds allocated under the scheme remain unutilised because states do not come forward with their share, leading to lapse of annual budgetary allocation. Sample this: a total of Rs 981.98 crore were sanctioned in 2019-20. Ultimately, only Rs 84.9 crore came to be spent, leaving 91.36% funds unutilised. In 2020-21, of the sanctioned Rs 594.36 crore, Rajasthan emerged on the top by utilising Rs 41.28 crore but again substantial funds lapsed due to non-utilisation.
    • No ownership of scheme: There is no single ownership of the scheme. Lack of one coordinating agency prevents its successful execution. The CSS, in its current form, visualises a separate state- and central-level monitoring committees.
    • No representation of judiciary in central committees: In the central committee, there is no representation of the judiciary as an institution. So, the ultimate consumer of the scheme is absent from the entire process.
    • Lack of planning: Lack of planning for the future also has its casualties. At present, the central scheme does not plan to cater to future requirements. So, there is no discussion on the foreseeable workload of district judiciary in the coming 10-20 years.
    • No single agency to implement: The lack of a single agency prevents from realising both the short-term and long-term objectives. Short-term objectives such as constructing courtrooms for the existing judicial strength as opposed to sanctioned strength, record rooms, computer service rooms, etc. suffer in the absence of a single agency that could measure progress of planned initiatives and nudge the stakeholders into acting.

    Judicial

    What is the way forward?

    • Single dedicated institution: A single permanent body as proposed by Justice Ramana would bring a cohesive approach with ensuring that when states submit action plans for upgrading/establishing judicial infrastructure, they also deposit their share of funds with the authority.
    • Working with state government: While the actual work is carried out in partnership with the states, it will ensure that one agency is responsible for mapping out objectives and achieving them.

    Conclusion

    • Justice is keystone of healthy society and just Nation. India cannot move ahead to its economic prosperity without upgrading its judiciary. Upgrading the judicial infrastructure should be priority for the judiciary as well as government.

    Mains Question

    Q. Enlist the historical attempt at upgrading judicial infrastructure. Despite so much attempts, what are the major reasons for lack of judicial infrastructure?

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

     

  • What is Vacation Bench of Supreme Court?

    Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud said no Vacation Benches will be available in the apex court during the winter break.

    Vacation Bench

    • A Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court is a special bench constituted by the Chief Justice of India.
    • The court takes two long vacations each year, the summer and winter breaks, but is technically not fully closed during these periods.
    • Litigants can still approach the Supreme Court and, if the court decides that the plea is an “urgent matter”, the Vacation Bench hears the case on its merits.
    • While there is no specific definition as to what an “urgent matter” is.
    • During vacations the court generally admits writs related to habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto matters for enforcement of any fundamental right.

    Do you know?

    The Supreme Court has 193 working days a year for its judicial functioning, while the High Courts function for approximately 210 days, and trial courts for 245 days. High Courts have the power to structure their calendars according to the service rules.

    Legal Provisions for Vacation Bench

    • Under Rule 6 of Order II of The Supreme Court rules, 2013 the CJI has nominates the Division Benches for the hearing of urgent miscellaneous matters and regular hearing matters during the summer vacation for period.
    • The rule reads that CJI may appoint one or more Judges to hear during summer vacation or winter holidays all matters of an urgent nature which under these rules may be heard by a Judge sitting singly.
    • And, whenever necessary, he may likewise appoint a Division Court for the hearing of urgent cases during the vacation which require to be heard by a Bench of Judges.

    Which else can appoint vacation bench?

    • The High Courts and trial courts too have Vacation Benches to hear urgent matters under their jurisdiction.

    Has vacation benches made any historic judgments?

    • Vacation Benches of the Supreme Court have also authored historical decisions.
    • One of the best known is when a Vacation Bench Judge in June 1975, refused PM Indira Gandhi’s plea to stay an Allahabad High Court decision setting aside her election – a decision which triggered the Emergency.
    • A Constitution Bench of the court had heard the triple talaq case during vacation days.

    Issues with court vacations

    • Huge pendency: Extended frequent vacations is not good optics, especially in the light of mounting pendency of cases and the snail’s pace of judicial proceedings.
    • Creating further delays: For an ordinary litigant, the vacation means further unavoidable delays in listing cases.

    Arguments in favour

    • Rejuvenation of judges: Lawyers have often argued that in a profession that demands intellectual rigour and long working hours — both from lawyers and judges — vacations are much needed for rejuvenation.
    • Long working hours: Judges typically work for over 10 hours on a daily basis. Apart from the day’s work in court from 10.30 am to 4 pm, they also spend a few hours preparing for the next day.
    • Preparing for judgments: A frequently-made argument is that judges utilise the vacation to write judgments.
    • Courts not in session: Another argument is that judges do not take leave of absence like other working professionals when the court is in session.
    • Socialization: Family tragedies, health are rare exceptions, but judges rarely take the day off for social engagements.
    • No impact on pendency: Data show that the Supreme Court roughly disposes of the same number of cases as are instituted before it in a calendar year.

    Reforming the vacation clause

    • In 2000, the Justice Malimath Committee, set up to recommend reforms in the criminal justice system, suggested that the period of vacation should be reduced by 21 days.
    • It suggested that the Supreme Court work for 206 days, and High Courts for 231 days every year.
    • In its 230th report, the Law Commission of India headed by Justice A R Lakshmanan in 2009 called for reform in this system.
    • Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half an hour, it said.
    • In 2014, when the Supreme Court notified its new Rules, it said that the period of summer vacation shall not exceed seven weeks from the earlier 10-week period.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more