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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • SC trims law practice requirement to 1 year for judicial service

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of prior legal practice for entry into the judicial service. The same order cuts the mandated experience from three years to one. The decision came on review petitions filed against All India Judges Association v. Union of India (May 2025). That judgment had reintroduced a minimum practice condition for candidates applying to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), reversing an earlier position that allowed fresh law graduates to sit the examination. The present order was passed by a majority of 2:1 in a three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. What is contested is whether one year at the Bar can supply the courtroom exposure that the three year rule was designed to guarantee, or whether the shortfall has simply been shifted into training the judiciary itself will now have to deliver.

    What has the Court now ordered on eligibility for judicial service?

    1. The principle survives: Prior legal practice remains a precondition for applying to the judicial service, so the 2025 position that a law degree alone is insufficient is undisturbed.
    2. The quantum is cut by two thirds: The required period of active legal practice falls from three years to one year.
    3. The margin was narrow: The majority opinion was delivered by two judges of a three judge Bench, with the Chief Justice of India authoring it.
    4. The vehicle was a review: The order was passed on review petitions filed against the May 2025 verdict, so it revisits that judgment rather than deciding a fresh challenge.

    How is the shortened practice requirement compensated?

    1. A year at a judicial academy follows selection: A successful applicant carrying one year of legal practice undergoes a one year intensive training programme at the State judicial academy concerned.
    2. A clerkship year follows the academy: That training is followed by a final year of law clerkship with senior judicial officers and High Court judges.
    3. The total exposure is rebuilt to three years: One year of practice, one year of academy training and one year of clerkship together restore the three year period the 2025 judgment had demanded at the Bar alone.
    4. The locus of training shifts: Two of those three years are now delivered inside the judicial system rather than in independent practice.

    What happens to candidates who applied in the interregnum?

    1. A year has already elapsed: The majority noted that a full year has passed since the May 2025 judgment, during which recruitment continued under uncertainty.
    2. Interregnum applicants are deemed compliant: Candidates who applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in that period are treated as having completed the required one year of active legal practice.
    3. No proof will be demanded from them: They will not be asked to furnish certificates of proof of practice.
    4. The rule bites from a fixed date: The one year prior practice requirement comes into force in earnest from 1 April 2027.

    Does a one year requirement still deliver what Bar experience was meant to supply?

    1. The dissent rejects the reduction: One judge on the Bench dissented from the majority view on the shortened period.
    2. The stated ground is readiness: The dissenting opinion holds that experience at the Bar is essential for students coming straight out of college, which is an argument about courtroom judgement rather than about length of service.
    3. The majority’s answer is substitution, not agreement: The majority accepts that one year of practice is by itself insufficient, and supplies the balance through the two internal years set out above.
    4. The unresolved question is equivalence: Structured training gives uniform instruction, and practice gives exposure to litigants, adversarial pressure and case failure. The order does not establish that the two are interchangeable.

    Challenges to a prior practice requirement for judicial service

    1. It delays entry and shrinks the applicant pool: A compulsory year at the Bar pushes the earliest entry age up and deters graduates who cannot fund an unpaid year. Eg. Stipends for junior advocates in district courts frequently fall below minimum wage levels in the same district. Fix. Make the practice year count only where the candidate is paid a notified minimum stipend, funded through a Bar Council administered corpus.
    2. Proof of practice invites certification abuse: Practice is usually certified by a senior advocate or a judicial officer, which turns an eligibility condition into a patronage transaction. Eg. Certificates of practice have historically been contested in service litigation over district judiciary appointments. Fix. Replace discretionary certificates with an objective test of appearances recorded on the National Judicial Data Grid.
    3. It falls unevenly on first generation and women entrants: Candidates without family in the profession lack the chambers access that makes a practice year viable. Eg. Women have been the majority of successful candidates in several State judicial service examinations, a pattern that a mandatory chambers year puts at risk. Fix. Create funded court attachment schemes at every district court reserved for first generation law graduates.
    4. Vacancies are already the binding constraint: Adding a filter at entry slows recruitment into a cadre where roughly one fourth of sanctioned posts already lie vacant. Eg. Subordinate courts carry a pendency of about 49 million cases, with over 1.8 lakh cases pending for more than thirty years. Fix. Run recruitment cycles on a fixed annual calendar so the eligibility change does not compound the delay in filling posts.
    5. Training capacity has not been sized for the new load: The academy year now required of every recruit assumes faculty and residential capacity that most academies do not have. Eg. Several State judicial academies run induction courses of a few months rather than a full year. Fix. Fund academy expansion under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for judicial infrastructure before the rule takes effect in 2027.
    6. The reform addresses quality of entrants, not throughput: Better prepared judges do not by themselves raise disposal where procedure, adjournments and clerical load consume court time. Eg. The case clearance rate in subordinate courts stands at about 89 per cent, so pendency accumulates even with sitting judges at work. Fix. Appoint professional court managers at every district court complex to take administrative work off judicial officers.

    Conclusion

    The Court has retained the principle that a judicial officer should reach the bench with courtroom exposure. It conceded at the same time that a three year bar at the Bar was too heavy a filter for a cadre already short of judges. The compromise moves two of the three years inside the system, and defers the whole scheme so it applies in earnest from 1 April 2027. The next step is with the State High Courts and Public Service Commissions, which must align their service rules and academy capacity before that date.

    Subordinate judiciary in India

    1. Where it sits: The subordinate judiciary comprises the district and taluka level civil and criminal courts, and it is where the overwhelming majority of litigation begins and ends.
    2. The staffing position: India has roughly 21 judges per million people, against the Law Commission’s recommended benchmark of 50.
    3. Who controls it: The High Court of each State exercises administrative and disciplinary control over the subordinate courts within its jurisdiction.

    Constitutional framework governing the subordinate judiciary

    1. Article 233: Provides for the appointment of District Judges by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
    2. Article 234: Governs the recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service, by the Governor in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
    3. Article 235: Vests administrative and disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary in the High Court.
    4. Article 236: Defines “district judge” and “judicial service” for the purposes of this Chapter.
    5. Article 312: Empowers Parliament to create an All India Judicial Service on a Rajya Sabha resolution passed by a two thirds majority.

    Government initiatives for the subordinate judiciary

    1. eCourts Mission Mode Project, Phase III: Funds digitisation of case records, virtual courts and paperless court rooms across district judiciary establishments.
    2. Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the Judiciary: Finances court halls, residential units, lawyers’ halls and digital computer rooms at the district and subordinate level.
    3. Fast Track Special Courts: Dedicated courts set up to try offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and rape cases within statutory timelines.
    4. National Judicial Data Grid: A public dashboard publishing case pendency, disposal and age of cases for every district court, which makes court level performance comparable.

    Back2Basics: Civil Judge (Junior Division)

    1. The entry post: It is the lowest rung of the State judicial service and the post through which most judicial officers enter the district judiciary.
    2. How recruitment happens: Candidates are selected under Article 234 through an examination conducted by the State Public Service Commission or the High Court, in consultation with the High Court.
    3. What the court tries: A Civil Judge (Junior Division) exercises original civil jurisdiction up to a pecuniary limit fixed by State law, and the corresponding criminal post is Judicial Magistrate First Class.
    4. Career path: Promotion runs to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and then to the cadre of District Judge, with a share of District Judge posts filled by direct recruitment from the Bar.

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system on appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA.”

  • Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to quash FIRs against student protesters, sets up panel on use of force

    Why in the News

    A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court agreed to use its Article 142 power to quash first information reports (FIRs) naming students who joined the nationwide protests against the NEET-UG paper leak. The move separates two categories the State had merged, peaceful student protesters and 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, and forces a question the criminal process itself had avoided, who decides where lawful dissent ends. The Court simultaneously moved from case specific relief toward standing rules, proposing a high powered committee to lay down guidelines and protocol for the police use of force.

    What is Article 142 of the Constitution?

    1. Plenary power to do complete justice: Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
    2. Enforceable across India: Such a decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India in the manner prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament.
    3. Ancillary powers under Article 142(2): The Court may secure the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of documents, and the investigation or punishment of contempt of itself.
    4. Not bound by ordinary statutory limits: Prohibitions in ordinary law do not operate as limitations on the Article 142 power, which is why the Court can quash an FIR that a statutory route would not permit it to touch.
    5. Discretionary and case specific: The power is exercised on the facts of the particular case and does not by itself create a general rule for later cases.

    What is a Facial Recognition System (FRS)?

    1. Biometric matching technology: A Facial Recognition System (FRS) captures a facial image and compares its measurable features against a stored database to return a probable identity match.
    2. Deployment at the protest site: The police affidavit stated that FRS is not deployed for indiscriminate surveillance and does not automatically capture, create or maintain profiles of every individual present.
    3. Database composition claimed: The police stated that the record covers faces of persons accused in serious offences, not those in petty matters such as traffic challans.

    What is the proportionality test?

    1. A four part judicial standard: The proportionality test asks whether a State measure pursues a legitimate aim, is rationally connected to that aim, is the least restrictive alternative, and strikes a fair balance between the aim and the rights burdened.
    2. Distinct from a privacy claim: The Bench stated it will examine the FRS deployment on proportionality and not on Article 21, which narrows the enquiry to whether the means matched the stated policing purpose.

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

    1. Derived from two Fundamental Rights: The right to protest flows from Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression, read with Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    2. Available only to peaceful assembly: The protection attaches to assembly that is peaceable and unarmed, and falls away where an assembly turns violent.
    3. Subject to reasonable restrictions: Restrictions are permitted under Article 19(2) on grounds including public order, and under Article 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
    4. No right to an indefinite occupation of public space: The settled position is that a designated protest site may be used, but a public road or thoroughfare cannot be occupied indefinitely.
    5. The Court’s operative position in this case: The Bench stated it would protect students so long as they intended to hold a peaceful and lawful protest and raise demands they expected the authorities to hear.

    Which constitutional provisions govern protest, policing and this jurisdiction?

    1. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): Guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    2. Article 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions on those two rights, including on the ground of public order.
    3. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, the route through which privacy and bodily integrity claims against surveillance and force are usually raised.
    4. Article 32: Gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights, the gateway through which these petitions reached it.
    5. Article 142: Confers the plenary power to pass any order necessary for complete justice, the power the Bench invoked to quash the FIRs.
    6. Article 144: Requires all civil and judicial authorities in India to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
    7. Seventh Schedule, State List Entries 1 and 2: Place public order and police with the States, which is why the Delhi Police answered through the Union in the national capital.

    What exactly did the Court direct on the FIRs?

    1. Quashing confined to student only FIRs: The Bench sought a list of FIRs in which only students were named, and stated it would quash those by invoking Article 142.
    2. Serious antecedents carved out: FIRs involving elements with serious criminal antecedents were left to be decided subject to discussion in court.
    3. Investigation narrowed to a named number: The Solicitor General stated the police would confine investigation to 2,873 persons identified at the protest site with serious criminal backgrounds.
    4. Charges specified for that set: The affidavit named murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and POCSO offences among the charges against those 2,873 persons.
    5. Non disclosure of FIR details flagged: Counsel for the students stated the police had not shared even the FIR numbers despite promising no action against peaceful protesters.
    6. Generic labels rejected: The Bench held that the State cannot refer to undesirable elements in generic terms and must at least identify them.

    Why is the Court routing the inquiry through a high powered committee?

    1. Proposed composition: The committee would comprise a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice and a retired police officer of Director General of Police rank.
    2. Consent already secured: The Bench stated it had obtained the consent of a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a retired Director General of Police of an unconnected State.
    3. Two names kept open deliberately: Both options were retained so that no allegation could later be raised against the presence of the CBI officer on the panel.
    4. Mandate beyond this protest: The Bench identified laying down guidelines and protocol for the use of force as a task for the committee, alongside issues needing immediate attention.
    5. Urgent items identified: Allegations of police personnel sexually molesting women protesters, and online harassment and victimisation of vulnerable persons, were listed for urgent examination.
    6. Evidence to be transferred: The Court stated it would direct the authorities to hand over all digital and other materials to the committee.

    What does the police affidavit claim about the use of force at Jantar Mantar?

    1. Force described as graded: The affidavit stated the force employed was proportionate, reasonable, graded and in accordance with law, and used only after protesters resorted to violence.
    2. Tear smoke shells as last resort: The police stated that tear smoke shells were used only as a last resort and that the lathi charge was limited and controlled.
    3. Specific denials recorded: The affidavit denied the use of nail lathis and denied that officers manhandled women protesters.
    4. Plainclothes personnel admitted: The police admitted deploying plainclothes personnel as spotters, describing this as a globally followed crowd control arrangement at large gatherings.
    5. Hindsight objection raised: The police argued that instantaneous operational decisions cannot be misjudged later by selectively relying on isolated video clips or media reports.
    6. Counter on accountability: Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the affidavit records no internal or administrative action against the personnel concerned.

    Why has the Court framed the surveillance question as proportionality rather than privacy?

    1. A narrower and faster enquiry: Testing proportionality asks whether FRS deployment matched its stated purpose, which the Bench can decide on the record without reopening the settled privacy jurisprudence.
    2. Sequencing stated by the Bench: The primary question was identified as whether excessive force was used, with the FRS aspect to be examined after that.
    3. The petitioners’ wider claim left untested: Counsel argued that FRS cannot be used at all and that data on persons other than the accused are also retained.
    4. The storage objection: Counsel for a Rajya Sabha member submitted that the data were stored with private entities, a custody question a proportionality enquiry does not automatically reach.
    5. The data the police disclosed: FRS returned 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, of whom 92 were involved in over 10 cases each and 47 of those 92 were history sheeters.
    6. The unresolved consequence: A proportionality finding settles whether this deployment was excessive, not whether a permanent facial database of protest sites is constitutionally permissible.

    What are the major debates surrounding Article 142 and the policing of protest?

    1. Complete justice against statutory command: One position treats Article 142 as a residual equity power to fill gaps, the other holds that it cannot be used to supplant express statutory provisions.
    2. Precedent versus one off relief: Counsel opposing the quashing asked whether this would be a one off order or a precedent, since a mass quashing of FIRs invites replication in every future agitation.
    3. Remorse as a condition for relief: The objection that the students had not expressed a shred of remorse or regret raises whether contrition is a legitimate precondition for constitutional relief.
    4. Lawfulness of the march itself: It was submitted that the 20 July march towards Parliament was unlawful, which reframes the dispute from excessive force to the legality of the assembly.
    5. Individual accountability against institutional inquiry: Petitioners pressed for immediate action against identified officers, while the Bench held that giving directions now would curtail the committee’s own role.
    6. Surveillance as ordinary policing: The police characterised FRS as a legitimate, bona fide and proportionate policing measure, which if accepted normalises biometric identification at every large gathering.

    Challenges to the use of Article 142

    1. Absence of a stated limiting principle: No settled test governs when the power may be used, so its exercise turns on the composition of the Bench, e.g. the 2016 direction banning liquor vends within 500 metres of national and State highways was substantially diluted by the Court itself in 2017.
    2. Encroachment on the legislative domain: Orders made under Article 142 can create obligations Parliament never enacted, e.g. the 2016 direction making the National Anthem compulsory in cinema halls, which the Court made optional again in 2018.
    3. No appeal against the order: A direction issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 is not appealable, so an error of fact in the underlying record survives uncorrected, e.g. sealed cover material relied on in several public interest matters was never tested by the affected parties.
    4. Selective relief risk: Quashing an entire class of FIRs without a public list invites the charge that relief tracked the political salience of the protest, e.g. FIRs arising from other agitations of the same period, including the Siwan firing incident of 25 July, remain live.
    5. Executive resistance to enforcement: An Article 142 order still depends on the executive for compliance, e.g. the April 2025 order deeming Tamil Nadu bills assented led to a Presidential Reference rather than settled implementation.
    6. Displacement of ordinary remedies: Routine use encourages litigants to bypass High Court remedies under Article 226, e.g. FIR quashing petitions ordinarily lie under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court.

    Conclusion

    The Bench used an extraordinary constitutional power not to settle guilt but to draw a line the police investigation had not drawn, between a protest and the criminal record of individuals inside it. The unresolved question is institutional rather than factual, since a committee of retired judges and a retired police officer will now write the protocol for the use of force that no statute currently supplies. The proportionality enquiry into facial recognition, framed expressly outside Article 21, will decide whether biometric identification at a protest site is treated as a policing tool or as a rights question. The order framing the committee’s terms of reference was stated to be forthcoming the next day.

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

    Why in the News

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

    Who is an amicus curiae?

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

    What is a designated court for cases against legislators?

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

    What does the 22nd amicus report record?

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

    What is the full pendency profile in the data?

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

    What has the Supreme Court already directed since 2017?

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

    Why has pendency stayed above 4,000 since 2018?

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

    What does the amicus recommend?

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

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

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

    Challenges to expeditious trial of legislators

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Why in the News

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

    What is the Bar Council of India?

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

    What is the All India Bar Examination?

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

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

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

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Free Speech and Professional Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why are lawyers’ collectives seeking a no confidence motion?

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

    Major debates surrounding the regulation of the legal profession

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

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India

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

    Conclusion

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

    The Legal Profession in India

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

    Constitutional Framework Governing the Judiciary and the Legal Profession

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

    Laws and Rules Governing the Legal Profession

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

    Back2Basics: NALSAR University of Law

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

    Government Initiatives

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

    Key Facts about the Legal Profession

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

    Challenges in the Legal Profession and Legal Education

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

    Way Forward

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

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

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

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

    What is the Bar Council of India?

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

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

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

    What is moral turpitude?

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

    What is a chilling effect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India

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

    Conclusion

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

    Regulation of the Legal Profession in India

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

    Statutory Framework Governing Enrolment of Advocates

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

    Laws, Acts and Rules Governing the Legal Profession in India

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

    Back2Basics: Advocates Act, 1961

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

    Government Initiatives for Legal Education and Access to Justice

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

    Key Facts about the Bar Council of India

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

    Challenges in Regulating Legal Education and the Legal Profession in India

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

    Way Forward

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

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

    Answer: (b)”

  • Can Parliament remove a judge who has resigned?

    Why in the News

    A parliamentary inquiry committee found all three charges proved against a former High Court judge, including failure to explain cash recovered from his residence and interference with evidence. The issue is whether the removal process can continue after his resignation.

    Removal of Judges: Constitutional Framework

    1. Article 124(4): Supreme Court judges can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    2. Article 217: Deals with the tenure and removal of High Court judges.
    3. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Provides the inquiry mechanism and formulation of charges.
    4. Parliamentary approval: Removal requires a special majority in each House, in the same session.
    5. Final step: After Parliament passes the address, the President issues the removal order.

    What did the Inquiry Committee Find?

    • All three charges were proved.
    • The judge failed to satisfactorily explain the cash recovered from his residence.
    • The committee found attempts to interfere with evidence.

    Key Constitutional Issue After Resignation

    • Removal is primarily linked to holding judicial office.
    • Resignation ends the judge’s tenure, creating a question about whether Parliament can still complete the removal process.
    • Possible consequences involving pension or future disqualification make the issue constitutionally significant.
    • There is no settled precedent on completing the removal process against a judge who has already resigned.

    Prelims Facts

    • Ground for removal → Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
    • High Court judge → Article 217
    • Supreme Court judge → Article 124
    • Inquiry procedure → Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
    • Removal requires → Special majority in both Houses
    • Final removal order → President
    • Policy disagreement → Not a ground for removal
    • Historical fact → No Indian judge has so far been removed after completion of the parliamentary removal process.

    “[2025, GS2, 15] “Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.”

    [2021] With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:
    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the president of India.
    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
    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

  • Inquiry committee finds charges proved against Justice Yashwant Varma; removal under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

    Why in the News?

    A three member inquiry committee found all three charges proved against former judge Justice Yashwant Varma over unexplained burnt currency found at his official residence. The key issue is whether Parliament can continue the removal process after his resignation.

    Judicial Removal Process

    Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:

    1. Motion: Signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
    2. Admission: Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject it.
    3. Inquiry Committee: Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and Distinguished jurist
    4. Parliamentary approval: Motion must pass in both Houses by:
      • Majority of total membership, and
      • 2/3 of members present and voting
    5. Final removal: President issues the removal order.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 124(4): Removal of Supreme Court judges for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Article 124(5): Parliament can regulate the inquiry procedure.
    • Articles 217 & 218: Apply the removal framework to High Court judges.
    • Article 121: Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct except during a removal motion.

    Varma Inquiry: Three Charges

    1. Unexplained cash: Burnt currency found at his official residence.
    2. Evidence preservation: Failure to preserve the material evidence.
    3. Evasive explanations: Committee found his explanations misleading and unsupported.

    Key Constitutional Issue

    • Removal motion was admitted before his resignation.
    • The law does not expressly clarify whether proceedings can continue after resignation.
    • The issue therefore exposes a legal gap concerning post resignation proceedings and consequences for pension and other benefits.

    “[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

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

    Why in the news

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

    What is the National Tribunals Commission (NTC)?

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

    What is the current status of tribunal appointments in India?

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

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Tribunals

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

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

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

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

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

    Major debates surrounding tribunalisation in India

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

    Challenges to the National Tribunals Commission

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

    Conclusion

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

    What is the Separation of Powers Doctrine?

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

    Key Concerns Regarding Separation of Powers in India

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

    Statutory Framework Governing Tribunals

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

    Back2Basics: Landmark rulings on tribunals

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

    Way Forward

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

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

  • Lok Sabha clears Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026

    Why in the News

    The Lok Sabha has cleared the Bankers’ Books Evidence Bill, 2026, replacing the colonial Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. It modernises how bank records are admitted as evidence in court, amid data-privacy concerns.

    What does the Bill change?

    1. Digital records: It recognises electronic and digital bank records as admissible evidence, aligning with modern banking.
    2. Officer powers: It empowers a senior-rank officer to certify records and use hash values to verify integrity.

    Why do concerns remain?

    1. Data privacy: Wider access to digital bank records raises questions on safeguards for customer financial data.
    2. Certification standards: The reliability of hash-based verification depends on tamper-proof audit trails.
    3. Overlap with new codes: The Bill must sit consistently with the recently enacted evidence and criminal law framework.

    Conclusion

    The Bill updates a 19th-century evidence law for a digital banking era. The next milestone is Rajya Sabha clearance and rules on data safeguards.

  • Rajya Sabha passes the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 as a Money Bill

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court through the Money Bill route, triggering debate over the constitutional validity of bypassing the Rajya Sabha.

    What is a Money Bill?

    • Constitutional basis: Defined under Article 110 of the Constitution.
    • Scope: A Bill is a Money Bill only if it deals exclusively with matters such as:
      • Taxation, Government borrowing, Custody or withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, Contingency Fun, and Appropriation of public money
    • Speaker’s certification: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha decides whether a Bill is a Money Bill, and the certification is endorsed on the Bill.
    • Limited role of Rajya Sabha: The Rajya Sabha can only recommend amendments within 14 days, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.

    What does the Bill provide?

    • Higher judicial strength: Increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
    • Replaces an Ordinance: Substitutes the Ordinance promulgated in May 2026.
    • Government’s objective: Reduce case pendency, improve judicial efficiency, and strengthen access to justice.

    Why is the Money Bill route controversial?

    • Constitutional issue pending: The validity of certifying certain laws as Money Bills is under consideration by a larger Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
    • Concern over precedent: In the Aadhaar judgment (2018), the dissenting opinion described the use of the Money Bill route for substantive legislation as a “fraud on the Constitution.”
    • Reduced parliamentary scrutiny: Since the Rajya Sabha has only an advisory role, critics argue that the route weakens bicameral legislative oversight.

    “[2014] The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in?
    (a) The President of India.
    (b) The Parliament.
    (c) The Chief Justice of India.
    (d) The Law Commission.