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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • Marital Rape

    Context

    On May 10, 2022, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court gave a split ruling on marital rape, thus ensuring a future hearing in the Supreme Court.

    Why rape and marriage were seen as mutually exclusive

    • The concepts of rape and marriage were seen as mutually exclusive – they could not be brought together.
    • Across the world, and till very recently, marriage has been explicitly treated as being outside the purview of rape.
    • Even in the Western countries that we associate with the more “advanced” practices of gender equality, marital rape was treated as an exception to the crime of rape till the early 1990s.
    • In the absence of a universal definition, several scholars take marriage to be an institution where a man and a woman live together, have sexual relations and engage in cooperative economic activity.
    • Link between marriage and property: Others have emphasised the link between marriage and property.
    • The dominant form of marriage in the modern West became quite distinctly patriarchal, visible in late 18th-century British law, for instance, whereby a wife became the property of her husband upon marriage.
    • Husbands, therefore, had the right to access their wives sexually, without the question of coercion or consent being on the horizon in the first place.
    • As property, wives had to be protected from the (illegal) sexual access of other men, and here too, their consent was irrelevant.

    Introduction of marital rape

    • If what distinguishes the relationship of husband and wife from other relations between men and women is the legitimate expectation of sexual relations, then the introduction of marital rape signals the entry of a new and equally legitimate expectation: A wife’s consent to sexual relations is essential, and in this, she is no different from other women.
    • Husbands no longer enjoy unquestioned rights over the bodies of their wives — this is what it means for a wife to be a person with bodily integrity.

    Conclusion

    It is strange, indeed, that most parts of the world, India included, became modern while continuing to believe that wives are the property of husbands.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • India’s judiciary and the slackening cog of trust

    Context

    Departures from substantive and procedural justice need deep scrutiny as the fallout could severely imperil governance.

    Judicial corruption in India in lower judiciary

    • According to Transparency International (TI 2011), 45% of people who had come in contact with the judiciary between July 2009 and July 2010 had paid a bribe to the judiciary.
    • The most common reason for paying the bribes was to “speed things up”.
    • The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (April 2013) estimates that for every ₹2 in official court fees, at least ₹ 1,000 is spent in bribes in bringing a petition to the court.
    • Freedom House’s ‘Freedom in the World 2016 report for India’ states that “the lower levels of the judiciary in particular have been rife with corruption” (Freedom House 2016).
    • Allegations of corruption against High Court judges abound.
    • Worse, there are glaring examples of anti-Muslim bias, often followed by extra-judicial killings by the police.
    • Anti-Muslim bias alone may not result in erosion of trust but if combined with unprovoked and brutal violence against them (e.g., lynching of innocent cattle traders) is bound to.

    Forms of judicial corruption

    • Pressure and bribery: Judicial corruption takes two forms: political interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch, and bribery.
    • Despite the accumulation of evidence on corrupt practices, the pressure to rule in favour of political interests remains intense.
    • Court officials coax bribes for free services, and lawyers charge additional “fees” to expedite or delay cases.

    Case pendency

    • According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of April 12, 2017, there are 24,186,566 pending cases in India’s district courts, of which 2,317,448 (9.58%) have been pending for over 10 years, and 3,975,717 (16.44%) have been pending for between five and 10 years.
    • Vacancies: As of December 31, 2015, there were 4,432 vacancies in the posts of [subordinate court] judicial officers, representing about 22% of the sanctioned strength.
    • In the case of the High Courts, 458 of the 1,079 posts, representing 42% of the sanctioned strength, were vacant as of June 2016.
    • Thus, severe backlogging and understaffing persisted, as also archaic and complex procedures of delivery of justice.

    Understanding the substantive and procedural justice

    • Substantive justice is associated with whether the statutes, case law and unwritten legal principles are morally justified e.g., freedom to pursue any religion,
    • Procedural justice is associated with fair and impartial decision procedures.
    • Outdated laws: Many outdated/dysfunctional laws or statutes have not been repealed because of the tardiness of legal reform both at the Union and State government levels.
    • Worse, there have been blatant violations of constitutional provisions.
    • The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (December 2019) provides citizenship to — except Muslims — Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.
    • But this goes against secularism and is thus a violation of substantive justice.
    • Alongside procedural delays, endemic corruption and mounting shares of under-trial inmates with durations of three to five years point to stark failures of procedural justice and to some extent of substantive justice.

    Conclusion

    Exercise of extra-constitutional authority by the central and State governments, weakening of accountability mechanisms, widespread corruption in the lower judiciary and the police, with likely collusion between them, the perverted beliefs of the latter towards Muslims, other minorities and lower caste Hindus, a proclivity to deliver instant justice, extra-judicial killings, filing FIRs against innocent victims of mob lynching have left deep scars on the national psyche.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • A new track for capital punishment jurisprudence

    Context

    A recent trend in the evolution of jurisprudence around the death penalty in India may reset judicial thinking around sentencing and have long-term ramifications in the awarding of capital punishment.

    New thinking in the jurisprudence around capital punishment

    • Capital punishment once delivered by the court of sessions (“sentencing court”) is required under law, specifically Chapter 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court (“confirming court”).
    • Over the last six months or so, while dealing with appeals against confirmation of the death sentence, the Supreme Court of India has examined sentencing methodology from the perspective of mitigating circumstances more closely.
    • The Court has also initiated a suo motu writ petition (criminal) to delve deep into these issues on key aspects surrounding our understanding of death penalty sentencing.
    • Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), the leading case on this point, calls for mitigating and aggravating circumstances to be balanced against each other and laid down the principle that the death penalty ought not to be awarded unless the alternative of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed”.
    • It is also an equally well-established legal principle that in a sentencing hearing, the accused must necessarily be provided with sufficient opportunity to produce any material that may have bearing on the sentencing exercise.
    • When read in conjunction with the ratio decidendi of the Bachan Singh case, it is incumbent upon the sentencing court and the confirming court to ensure that the question of reform and rehabilitation of a convicted person has been examined in detail for these courts to come to a definitive conclusion that all such options are unquestionably foreclosed.

    Lack of judicial uniformity

    •  A report by the National Law University Delhi’s Project 39A (earlier known as the “Centre on the Death Penalty”) titled ‘Matters of Judgment’ found that there is no judicial uniformity or consistency when it comes to awarding the death sentence.
    •  In the report titled ‘Death Penalty Sentencing in Trial Courts’ (also authored by Project 39A), findings reported from a study of cases involving death sentencing between 2000 and 2015 in Delhi, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have showed that courts have been lax in assessing the aspect of reformation while undertaking the sentencing exercise.
    • The Court, in Mofil Khan vs State of Jharkhand (2021), held that the “the State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused.
    • Undoubtedly, the onus has been placed on the State to lead evidence to show that no reformation is possible and for the sentencing courts to be satisfied that a thorough mitigation analysis was done before the death sentence is awarded.

    Mitigation investigation

    • For a complete mitigation investigation, professionals trained in psychology, sociology and criminology are required in addition to legal professionals.
    • Taking cognisance of the value of a holistic approach to mitigation investigation, the Court in Manoj & Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) issued directions to the State to place before the court all “report(s) of all the probation officer(s)” relating to the accused and reports “about their conduct and nature of the work done by them” while in prison.
    •  The order also directs that a trained psychiatrist and a local professor of psychology conduct a psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the convict.

    Conclusion

    The intervention of the Supreme Court of India in, hopefully, framing guidelines around incorporation of a mitigation analysis and consideration of psycho-social reports of the prisoner at the time of sentencing is timely and necessary.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Bill assent, a delay and the Governor’s options

    Context

    The State of Tamil Nadu has been witnessing a confrontation between the elected government and the State Governor on the question of giving assent to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) Bill passed by the State Assembly.

    Position of Governor in Constitutional setup in India:

    • Appointee of the President: The Governor is an appointee of the President, which means the Union government.
    • Although Article 154(1) of the Constitution vests in the Governor the executive power of the State, he is required to exercise that power in accordance with the Constitution.
    • In other words, the Governor can act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • It is a settled constitutional position that the Governor is only a constitutional head and the executive power of the State is exercised by the Council of Ministers.
    • In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court had clearly affirmed this position.
    • Dr. Ambedkar explained the position of the Governor in the Constituent Assembly as follows: “The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself: no functions at all.”
    • The Sarkaria Commission restates this position in its report, “it is a well-recognized principle that so long as the council of ministers enjoys [the] confidence of the Assembly its advice in these matters, unless patently unconstitutional, must be deemed as binding on the governor”.
    • In 2016, a five-judge constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (the Nabam Rebia case) reaffirmed the above position on the governors’ powers in our constitutional setup.

    What exactly are the options before the Governor in the matter of giving assent to a Bill passed by the Assembly?

    • Assent of the Governor or the President is necessary for a Bill to become law.
    • Four options: Article 200 of the Constitution provides for four alternative courses of action for a Governor when a Bill after being passed by the legislature is presented to him for his assent.
    • 1] The Governor can give his assent straightaway.
    • 2] The Governor can withhold his assent.
    • 3] He may also reserve it for the consideration of the President, in which case the assent is given or withheld by the President.
    • 4] The fourth option is to return the Bill to the legislature with the request that it may reconsider the Bill or any particular provision of the Bill.
    • When such a message is received from the Governor, the legislature is required to reconsider his recommendations quickly.
    • However, if the legislature again passes the Bill without accepting any of the amendments suggested by the Governor he is constitutionally bound to give assent to the Bill.

    Issue of the NEET Bill

    • The Governor of Tamil Nadu returned the NEET Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration of the Bill.
    • Accordingly, the Assembly held a special session in the first week of February and passed it again and presented it to the Governor for his assent.
    • He has not assented to the Bill so far.
    • While it is true that Article 200 does not lay down any time frame for the Governor to take action under this Article, it is imperative on the part of the Governor to exercise one of the options contained therein.
    • The option mentioned in Article 200 is meant to be exercised by the Governor without delay.
    • Non-action is not an option: Although Article 200 does not say by what time the Governor should take the next step, it clearly and unambiguously states the options for him to exercise.
    • It is obvious that if the Governor does not exercise any of those options he will not be acting in conformity with the Constitution because non-action is not an option contained in Article 200.
    • In fact, the words used in Article 200 “… it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare….” indicates that the Constitution requires the Governor to act without delay upon the presentation of the Bill.
    • In view of the mandatory provision in the proviso to Article 200, it is clear that the Constitution does not permit the Governor to sit on a Bill after the Assembly re-submits it to him after reconsideration.

    Takeaways

    • Giving assent to a Bill passed by the legislature is a part of the legislative process and not of the executive power.
    •  Withholding of assent, though an option, is not normally exercised by Governors because it will be an extremely unpopular step.
    • Besides, withholding assent to a Bill by the Governor, an appointee of the President, neutralises the entire legislative exercise by an elected legislature enjoying the support of the people.
    • This option is undemocratic and essentially against federalism. 
    • Practices in UK and Australia: In the United Kingdom it is unconstitutional for the monarch to refuse to assent to a Bill passed by Parliament.
    • Similarly, in Australia, refusal of assent to a Bill by the crown is considered repugnant to the federal system.

    Conclusion

    In our constitutional system, the Governor or the President is not personally responsible for their acts. But when a Governor does not take any decision on a Bill which is put up for his assent, he is not acting in exercise and performance of the duties cast upon him.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Governments ignoring court orders: CJI

    The CJI pointed to how courts had to deal with the new problem of “contempt petitions” triggered by the “deliberate inaction” of governments that chose to ignore judgments and orders.

    What did the CJI say?

    • The contempt petitions are a new category of burden on the courts, which is a direct result of the defiance by the governments.
    • Such actions show sheer defiance of governments towards judicial pronouncements.
    • There is visible inclination to pass off the responsibility of decision-making to courts.
    • The legislature’s work show ambiguity, lack of foresight and public consultation before making laws have led to docket explosion.

    What is Contempt of the Court?

    • Contempt of court is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.
    • There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or wilfully failing to obey a court order.

    How did the concept came into being?

    • The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old.
    • In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by him, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name.
    • Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.
    • Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

    What is the statutory basis for contempt of court?

    • There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India. Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws.
    • When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
    • Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself.
    • Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
    • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

    What are the kinds of contempt of court?

    The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal.

    • Civil contempt is fairly simple. It is committed when someone wilfully disobeys a court order or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to the court.
    • However, Criminal contempt is more complex.
    • It consists of three forms: (a) words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court (b) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding and (c) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
    • The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
    • The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months and/or a fine of up to ₹. 2,000.

    What does not account to contempt?

    • Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court.
    • Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.

    Is truth a defence against a contempt charge?

    • For many years, the truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt.
    • There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution.
    • The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence if it was in the public interest and was invoked in a bonafide.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Death Penalty

    Context

    On April 22, a Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice U.U. Lalit, decided to critically examine the routine and abrupt way in which trial judges often impose the death penalty on convicts.

    Individualistic approach

    • The challenge before the Court in the instant case of Irfan vs State of Madhya Pradesh was to identify the mitigating circumstances and to ensure a convict-centric approach so that the imposition of capital punishment becomes rarer, fairer, and principled.
    • According to the Court, “a ‘one size fit for all’ approach while considering mitigating factors during sentencing should end”.
    • Mitigation expert: The Bench indicated the need for mitigation experts to assist trial courts in reaching a correct conclusion on whether one should be sent to the gallows or not.
    • The Court seemed to think that an individualistic approach that examines the social, economic, emotional, and genetic components that constituted the offender rather than the offence, would go a long way in evolving a just and judicious sentencing policy.
    • An analysis of the possible reasons to avert the death penalty is reflected in a series of recent verdicts such as Lochan Shrivas vs State of Chhattisgarh (2021) and Bhagchandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021).
    • These reasons might include socio-economic backwardness, mental health, heredity, parenting, socialisation, education, etc.

    Background of the humane and reformist framework

    • The special reason: According to Section 354(3) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, while imposing the capital punishment, the judge should specify “the special reasons” for doing so.
    • It was in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980) that the Constitution Bench suggested a humane and reformist framework in the matter.
    • Bachan Singh requires the trial courts not only to examine the gravity of the offence but also the condition and the ‘reformability’ of the accused. 
    • Not unconstitutional: The Court, in Bachan Singh, refused to declare the death penalty as unconstitutional. 
    • It abundantly implied that no person is indubitably ‘irreformable’.
    • It had the effect of practically undoing the death penalty provision, if taken in its letter and spirit.
    • Person-centric approach: This person-centric approach, for its materialisation, needs a different judicial acumen that recognises the convict in her multitudes.

    Is the Bachan Singh doctrine followed?

    • The Bachan Singh principle was followed more in its breach than in compliance even by the Supreme Court.
    • In Ravji vs State of Rajasthan (1995), the Supreme Court said that it is the nature of the crime and not the criminal which is germane for deciding the punishment.
    • Several other cases also were decided by ignoring the Bachan Singh doctrine, as noted by the Supreme Court itself in Santhosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State of Maharashtra (2009) and Rajesh Kumar vs State (2011).
    • This egregious judicial error will have to be kept in mind while the Court revisits the issues related to mitigating factors and individual-centered sentencing policy in the Irfan case.
    • Shortcomings of Bachan Sing: Bachan Singh did not, in concrete terms, elaborate on the mitigating factors and the methods to gather them to avert the death penalty.
    • Nor did it explain the issues such as burden of proof and standard of proof in detail.

    Issue of misuse and overuse

    • Misuse of sedition provision: The Indian experience shows that whenever the Court tries to dilute the harshness of penal provisions by a balancing approach, instead of striking down the provision, the instrumentalities of the state (including the police, the prosecution and the court) continue to overuse or misuse the provisions.
    • The Supreme Court endorsed the validity of the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) with a rider that it could be invoked only when there is an incitement to violence.
    • But the state seldom acts based on interpretation of the law. 
    •  Many were booked for the charge of sedition since then for mere words, innocent tweets or harmless jokes.

    Social implications

    • Disproportionate effect on the poor: In India, as elsewhere, the poor, rather than the rich, are sent to the gallows.
    • Ineffectiveness of legal assistance: In Williams vs Taylor (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court said that failure of the defence lawyer in highlighting the mitigating factors that could lead to avoidance of capital punishment makes the legal assistance ineffective. 
    • Therefore, it infringes constitutionally guaranteed rights.
    • In the Indian scenario, the legal assistance received by the poor facing serious charges is far from satisfactory.
    • Mitigating factors not placed: And in the matter of sentencing too, the mitigating factors are either not placed before the trial court or not persuaded adequately to convince the trial judge to avoid the death penalty.

    Way forward

    • Taking empirical lessons from the fate of Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court may have to now ask the more fundamental question posed and negatived in Bachan Singh — the question of the constitutional validity of death penalty.
    • Comprehensive report: The Court, in the instant case, will have to evolve a legal device for procurement of a comprehensive report dealing with the socio-economic and hereditary backgrounds of the accused from experts in the fields of social work, psychiatry, psychology, anthropology, etc.
    • Violation of Article 21: The Court may have to revisit Bachan Singh itself in so far as it refused to declare the death penalty as violative of the right to life envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • Across the world, 108 nations have abolished death penalty in law and 144 countries have done so in law or practice, according to the Amnesty Report of 2021.
    • Judicial errors: In the Indian context, where judgmental error is quite frequent and the quality of adjudication is not ensured, what is required is a judicial abolition of death penalty. 

    Conclusion

    The present matter will have to be referred to a larger Bench, with a view to rectify the foundational omission in Bachan Singh — of not explicitly declaring capital punishment as unconstitutional.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What is Collegium System?

    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”.

    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.

    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 of opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegiums’ resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Retirement spree in SC may affect efforts to scale down pendency

    The retirements in the topmost rung of the judiciary in 2022 will encompass changes in the powerful Supreme Court Collegium and see two new Chief Justices in a span of months.

    Why in news?

    • The retirements come at a time when the court is in the process of steadying itself after particularly brutal waves of the pandemic.

    Pendency in Supreme Court

    • The Supreme Court’s statistics show that 70,362 cases are pending with it as on April 1, 2022.
    • Over 19% of them are not ready to be placed before a Bench for judicial hearing as they have not completed the required preliminaries.
    • While 52,110 are admission matters, 18,522 are regular hearing cases.
    • The number of Constitution Bench cases (both main and connected matters) totals 422.

    General scenario: Pendency of Cases

    • India’s legal system has the largest backlog of pending cases in the world – as many as 30 million pending cases.
    • This number is continuously increasing and this itself shows the inadequacy of the legal system.
    • And also due to this backlog, most of the prisoners in India’s prisons are detainees awaiting trial.

    Factors leading to under-performance of Indian Judiciary

    • The issue of heavy arrears pending in the various courts of the country has been a matter of concern since the time of independence.
    • The primary factors contributing to docket explosion and arrears as highlighted by Justice Malimath Committee report are as follows:
    1. Population explosion
    2. Litigation explosion
    3. Hasty and imperfect drafting of legislation
    4. Plurality and accumulation of appeals (Multiple appeals for the same issue)
    5. Inadequacy of judge strength
    6. Failure to provide adequate forums of appeal against quasi-judicial orders
    7. Lack of priority for disposal of old cases (due to the improper constitution of benches)
    8. Issue of appointment in Quasi-Judicial Bodies

    Way ahead

    • For pendency, time limits should be prescribed for all cases based on priorities.
    • So setting time standards is essential and it will vary for different cases, and also for different courts depending on their disposal capacity.
    • Alternative disputes resolution (ADR) mechanisms should be promoted for out-of-court settlements.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Idea that judges appoint judges is wrong: CJI

    The impression that “judges appoint judges” in India is wrong. It is the government which “finally appoints the judges in the name of the President of India, the head of our state”, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said in conversation with US Supreme Court judge.

    What did the CJI say??

    • There is an impression that in India judges appoint judges. It is a wrong impression.
    • The appointment is done through a lengthy consultative process known as collegium system. Many stakeholders are consulted.

    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”.

    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.

    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.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Marital rape

    Context

    Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court on March 23, 2022, in the case of Hrishikesh Sahoo vs State of Karnataka, pronounced the end of the marital rape exception.

    Background of the case

    • This judgment was a result of a unique case where a woman had filed a criminal complaint of rape against her husband due to the repeated acts of sexual assault she had to face.
    • Marital rape exception to Section 375: The police registered her complaint under Section 376 notwithstanding the marital rape exception, a charge sheet was filed and the Sessions Judge took cognisance and framed charges under Section 376.
    • This led to the husband approaching the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
    • In a nuanced and far-reaching judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna refused to quash the charge of rape against the husband.

    Violation of rights of woman

    • Violation of the right to equality: Justice Nagaprasanna held that if a man, being a husband is exempted for his acts of sexual assault, it would destroy women’s right to equality, which is the very soul of the Constitution.
    • Discrimination: He held that the Constitution recognises and grants equal status to women, but the exception to marital rape in the IPC amounts to discrimination because a wife is treated as subordinate to the husband.
    • The Constitution considers marriage as an association of equals and does not in any sense depict women to be subordinate to men and guarantees women the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 the right to live with dignity, personal liberty, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, right to reproductive choices, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression.
    • n Independent Thought vs Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court of India diluted it and removed the exception to marital rape to a wife not below 15 years and made it 18 years.

    Historical roots of the principle of exception

    • The exception to marital rape in common law was due to the dictum by Chief Justice Matthew Hale of Britain in 1736 where he argued that by marriage, a woman gave up her body to the husband and was accepted as an enduring principle of common law, due to which a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife.
    • This was therefore translated into criminal codes, including the Indian Penal Code which India adopted.
    • This principle has now been completely abolished.
    • In the United Kingdom, in 1991, the exception to marital rape was done away with in the case of R. vs R. The House of Lords held that where the common law rule no longer represents what is the true position of a wife in present-day society.
    • The court held that a husband’s immunity as expounded by Chief Justice Matthew Hale no longer exists.

    Conclusion

    The Karnataka High Court, by holding that the exception to marital rape in Section 375 is regressive and in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality, has now truly pronounced the death knell of the marital rape exception.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)