đŸ’„Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • National Lok Adalat  

    Why in the News?

    On September 13, a countrywide National Lok Adalat was held with a special focus on clearing pending traffic e-challans for minor offences.

    What is National Lok Adalat?

    • Overview: Lok Adalats held 4 times a year, on a single day, across all courts from the Supreme Court to Taluk Courts.
    • Scope: Settles both pending cases and pre-litigation disputes suitable for compromise.
    • Organisation: Dates fixed in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) calendar; sessions conducted nationwide.
    • Method: Focuses on amicable settlement rather than judicial imposition.
    • Common Cases: Matrimonial/family disputes, compoundable criminal cases, land acquisition, labour disputes, compensation claims, bank recoveries, and accident claims.
    • Exclusions: Non-compoundable or sensitive offences are outside its scope.

    About Lok Adalats:

    • Legal Status: Statutory body under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; amended in 2002 for Permanent Lok Adalats (public utility services).
    • Composition: Includes a judicial officer (Chairman), a lawyer, and a social worker.
    • History: First Lok Adalat held in Gujarat, 1982, as a voluntary conciliatory forum.
    • Award/Decision: Final, binding, and equivalent to a civil court decree; no appeal permitted.
    • Jurisdiction: Can settle pending cases, matters within court jurisdiction (even pre-litigation), on mutual consent, referral, or court satisfaction.
    • Organisation: Conducted by NALSA and State/District/High Court/Taluk Legal Services Authorities. NALSA operational since 9 November 1995.
    • Powers: Enjoy powers of a civil court; proceedings treated as judicial proceedings.
    • Benefits: No court fee, speedy disposal, procedural flexibility, direct party–judge interaction, and finality of settlement.
    [UPSC 2009] With reference to Lok Adalats, consider the following statements:

    1. An award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a degree of a civil court and no appeal lies against thereto before any court.

    2. Matrimonial/Family disputes are not covered under Lok Adalat.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only * (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • [4th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment.

    Linkage: The 2023 PYQ on judicial independence as a prerequisite of democracy directly relates to the Collegium debate. Concealing Justice Nagarathna’s dissent shows how opacity undermines independence by eroding legitimacy and public trust. True independence requires not just freedom from external control but also internal transparency and accountability.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Transparency in judicial appointments is once again under scrutiny. The recent revelation of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on a Collegium recommendation, concealed from the public, has sparked fresh debate on the opacity of India’s judicial system. This piece examines why concealing dissent undermines the judiciary’s legitimacy, what is at stake for democracy, and how reforms could restore accountability in the higher judiciary.

    Introduction

    Constitutional democracies, as South African jurist Etienne Mureinik observed, thrive on a “culture of justification”, the principle that every exercise of public power must be explained and defended. Indian judges have often invoked this idea to hold governments accountable. Yet, when it comes to the judiciary’s own functioning, particularly the Collegium system of judicial appointments, this principle falters. The recent concealment of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on the elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi illustrates the problem starkly: the public is denied access to crucial reasoning behind decisions that shape the judiciary itself.

    Why is this news significant?

    The dissent of a sitting Supreme Court judge on a Collegium recommendation has surfaced through media leaks, not official disclosure. This is striking because the official resolution uploaded on the Court’s website suggested unanimity. The lack of transparency is troubling not just for one appointment but for the credibility of the entire judicial system. For a country where judges decide on critical questions of liberty and constitutional balance, secrecy corrodes legitimacy and deepens the democratic deficit.

    Opacity as the defining feature of the Collegium system

    1. Judge-made law: The Collegium emerged from the Second Judges Case (1993) and was reinforced in the Third Judges Case (1998).
    2. Private deliberations: Decisions are made by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court behind closed doors.
    3. Minimal disclosure: Until 2017, no explanations were given. Later, skeletal resolutions were published, with only brief reasons disclosed in 2018 before the practice was abandoned.
    4. Resistance to transparency: Concerns of reputational harm and political interference are cited as justifications for secrecy.

    The critical importance of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent

    1. Grave objections concealed: Reports suggest her reservations were serious, but neither her note nor the majority’s reasoning is accessible to the public.
    2. Unclear role of the executive: It is uncertain whether her dissent was even communicated to the Union government, which cleared the appointment within 48 hours.
    3. Democratic deficit: When even dissent within the highest court is hidden, the culture of justification collapses.

    Balancing transparency with fairness in judicial appointments

    International examples:

    1. Britain: Judicial Appointments Commission publishes criteria and detailed assessment reports.
    2. South Africa: Judicial Service Commission conducts public interviews of candidates.
    3. Indian reality: Transparency is avoided, and even dissent becomes visible only through leaks.
    4. Balancing act: Protecting reputations requires sensitive disclosure, not complete secrecy.

    Democratic stakes of a secretive Collegium process

    1. Shaping constitutional outcomes: Judges appointed today decide on civil liberties, executive powers, and Union–State relations.
    2. Institutional legitimacy: Without openness, citizens lose trust in the judiciary.
    3. Contradiction of standards: Courts demand accountability from governments but exempt themselves.

    The urgent need for reform in the Collegium system

    1. Self-accountability: A judiciary that explains its decisions strengthens, not weakens, its independence.
    2. Preserving legitimacy: Concealment erodes public trust, while openness anchors authority in people’s confidence.
    3. Past failures: Transparency initiatives have been sporadic and quickly rolled back.
    4. Future imperative: Without reform, the judiciary risks losing moral authority, the very foundation of its role in democracy.

    Conclusion

    The concealment of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is not an isolated event but a symptom of the deeper opacity in judicial appointments. If the judiciary insists on accountability from other state organs, it must hold itself to the same standards. A transparent Collegium process will not diminish judicial independence; it will enhance legitimacy, anchor democracy in trust, and ensure that the culture of justification applies to all.

  • [3rd September 2025] India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Disucss the desirability of greater representation to women in higher judiciary to ensure equity and inclusiveness.

    Linkage: The acute gender imbalance in the Supreme Court, with only 11 women judges since 1950, directly reflects the inequity in higher judiciary appointments. Greater representation of women is not only about fairness but also about inclusiveness, diversity of perspectives, and legitimacy of justice delivery. This makes the 2021 UPSC question highly relevant as it highlights why institutionalising gender as a criterion in judicial appointments is essential.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The issue of women’s representation in the higher judiciary has resurfaced sharply after the recent appointments to the Supreme Court overlooked senior women judges and lawyers. Despite being the guardian of constitutional morality and equality, the apex court itself reflects a glaring gender imbalance. This article explores the extent of underrepresentation, the opacity in the appointment process, and why diversity on the Bench is not merely symbolic but essential for justice delivery.

    Introduction

    The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 created an opportunity to address the deep gender imbalance in India’s Supreme Court. However, with the appointments of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Alok Aradhe, the Court continues to have only one woman judge—Justice B.V. Nagarathna. This exposes both a structural problem in the judicial appointment system and the reluctance to institutionalise gender as a criterion for higher judiciary appointments.

    The significance of gender imbalance in the Supreme Court

    1. Striking underrepresentation: Only 11 women judges out of 287 since 1950 (3.8%).
    2. Missed opportunity: Despite two vacancies in August 2025, no woman judge was appointed.
    3. Historical first ignored: The 2021 Collegium decision appointing three women judges at once raised hope of change, but the momentum has not continued.
    4. Symbolic contradiction: The Court upholds gender equality but does not reflect it internally.

    The historical trajectory of women judges in the Supreme Court

    1. First woman judge: Justice Fathima Beevi (1989).
    2. Trail of appointments: Only 11 till date, with short tenures limiting their influence.
    3. Tenure disparity: Women often appointed at a late stage in career, reducing chances of reaching the Collegium or CJI position.
    4. Upcoming first woman CJI: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, but for only 36 days (Sept–Oct 2027).
    5. Lack of caste and minority representation: Only Justice Fathima Beevi represented a minority faith; no SC/ST woman judge was ever appointed.

    Gender disparity in direct elevation from the Bar

    1. Male dominance: Nine men have been directly elevated from the Bar.
    2. Single woman appointee: Justice Indu Malhotra (2018) was the only woman elevated directly.
    3. Systemic discrimination: Despite women Senior Advocates being present, elevation remains blocked.
    4. Global comparison: Worldwide, the Bar is a major route to the higher judiciary, India lags in enabling women lawyers.

    The opacity of the judicial appointment process

    1. Collegium secrecy: No clarity on criteria or names under consideration.
    2. Inconsistent transparency: Collegium resolutions briefly made public in 2017 under CJI Dipak Misra, but not institutionalised.
    3. Regional and caste factors considered: Yet gender is ignored as a formal category.
    4. Violation of merit claims: Recent appointments skipped senior women High Court judges despite “seniority” being cited in the past as a hurdle.

    The importance of women’s representation on the Bench

    1. Unique perspectives: Women judges bring experiential diversity that shapes judicial outcomes.
    2. Public trust: Greater representation builds confidence in judicial impartiality.
    3. Truly representative court: The SC must reflect India’s social and gender diversity to strengthen legitimacy.
    4. Judicial precedents: The Court itself has mandated 30% reservation for women in Bar Association elections, but has no such rule for its own appointments.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s gender imbalance undermines its constitutional commitment to equality and inclusivity. Unless women are institutionalised as a criterion for judicial appointments, alongside caste, religion, and region, the credibility of India’s top court will remain in question. Representation is not tokenism; it is a constitutional necessity to ensure justice is dispensed through the lens of diversity, fairness, and lived realities.

    Value Addition

    Committees & Reports

    1. Law Commission 230th Report (2009): Recommended adequate representation of women and minorities in higher judiciary.
    2. Justice Verma Committee (2013): Strongly stressed the need for gender diversity in judiciary to handle women-related cases with sensitivity.

    International Comparisons & Norms

    1. Beijing Platform for Action (1995): Calls for women in decision-making positions, including judiciary.
    2. Canada & UK: Women form 40–50% of higher judiciary in recent years.
    3. South Africa: Institutionalised diversity (race + gender) as a mandatory criterion in judicial appointments.

     

  • Recusal of Judges

    Why in the News?

    A Madhya Pradesh High Court judge has recused himself from hearing a petition in an alleged illegal mining case, saying that a MLA had “attempted to call him” to have a discussion regarding the matter.

    About Recusal:

    • Overview: Recusal is the act of a judge or official abstaining from a case due to conflict of interest or a possible perception of bias.
    • Legal Basis:
      • There are no codified laws, but multiple Supreme Court rulings provide guiding principles.
      • In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), SC held that the test of bias is the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the affected party.
    • Grounds for Recusal:
      • Prior personal/professional association with a party.
      • Having appeared for a party in the case earlier.
      • Ex parte communications with parties involved.
      • Cases where a judge may be reviewing his own earlier judgment (e.g., SC appeals against HC orders delivered by the same judge earlier).
      • Financial or personal interests (e.g., shareholding in a company party to the case).
    • Underlying Principle: Rooted in the maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” — no one should be a judge in their own cause.

    Process of Recusal:

    • Judge’s Discretion:
      • Decision usually rests with the judge’s conscience and discretion.
      • Judges may orally inform the parties, record it in the order, or sometimes recuse silently without explanation.
    • On Request:
      • Lawyers or parties may request recusal; final decision still rests with the judge.
      • Some judges have recused even without conflict, merely to avoid doubt. Others refuse if no genuine bias exists.
    • Procedure: Once recusal is declared, the case is placed before the Chief Justice for reassignment to another Bench.

    Concerns Related to Recusal:

    • Judicial Independence at Risk: Can be misused by litigants to bench hunt (cherry-pick a judge), undermining judicial impartiality.
    • Lack of Uniform Standards: Absence of formal rules might lead to inconsistent approaches by different judges.
    • Potential for Abuse:
      • Requests for recusal may be used to delay proceedings, intimidate judges, or obstruct justice.
      • This undermines both the integrity of courts and timely justice delivery.
    [UPSC 2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

    Options:

    (a) The decisions taken by the. Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.

    (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by the laws made by Parliament.

    (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.

    (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

     

  • Grant of Bail in India

    Why in the News?

    The US President has stopped federal funds that allowed cashless bail, sparking debate on whether the system is fair to the poor.

    Cashless Bail System in the US:

    • Cashless Bail: Removes upfront cash requirement, relying on non-financial conditions like monitoring or appearance assurance.
    • Criticism of Cash Bail: Disadvantages the poor, keeping undertrials jailed for minor offences. Imposes financial strain that may itself push individuals toward further crime.

    About Bail Provisions in India (BNSS, 2023, replacing CrPC, 1973):

    • Bail is essentially a mechanism to release an accused from custody with assurances that they will not abscond or tamper with evidence.
    • Governed by Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

    Types of Bail under BNSS:

    1. Regular Bail:
      • For bailable offences (Sec. 478): Bail is a right.
      • For non-bailable offences (Secs. 480, 483): Bail is at court’s discretion, depending on seriousness of offence, evidence, risk of absconding, and public interest.
    2. Anticipatory Bail (Sec. 482): Pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences, granted by higher courts with conditions such as no interference in investigation or threats to witnesses.
    3. Interim Bail: Temporary release while a regular or anticipatory bail application is pending.
    4. Statutory/Default Bail (Sec. 187): Accused has the right to bail if chargesheet not filed within the stipulated period.

    Bail Mechanisms in Practice:

    • Bond: Accused signs a bond and deposits cash as guarantee; refunded after trial unless terms are violated.
    • Bail Bond: Surety given by another person such as a friend, family member, or employer. Courts verify their documents, financial stability, and residence. In Mumbai, a solvency certificate issued by a revenue officer is required, which delays bail.
    • Personal Recognisance (PR) Bond: Accused released without immediate cash deposit but must arrange money within a specified time. Courts often hesitate to grant PR bonds citing trial integrity.

    Challenges in India’s Bail System

    • Undertrials stuck despite bail:
      • Many accused cannot furnish surety or small sums (â‚č5,000 or less).
      • Maharashtra (2022): 1,600+ persons in jail unable to meet bail conditions; 600 in Mumbai Metropolitan Region alone.
      • Prisons overcrowded: Maharashtra prisons had 12,343 excess prisoners (July 2025).
    • Judicial concerns: 268th Law Commission Report (2017):
      • Monetary bail system is discriminatory & unconstitutional.
      • Violates right to fair trial; leads to arbitrary classifications.
    • Supreme Court (2023 guidelines):
      • If an accused remains in jail >1 week despite bail, jail superintendent must inform District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
      • DLSA can send para-legal volunteers/lawyers to assist release.
      • Based on NALSA data: ~5,000 undertrials jailed despite bail.
    • Reform under BNSS (2023):
      • Jail authorities must apply for bail for undertrial prisoners who have:
        • Served 1/3 of maximum sentence (first-time offenders).
        • Served 1/2 of maximum sentence (repeat offenders).
      • Not applicable in life imprisonment or death penalty cases.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

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

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

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • Before legislation becomes litigation

    Introduction

    The framers of the Indian Constitution rejected the British model of absolute parliamentary sovereignty and instead vested sovereignty in the Constitution. Parliament was given the power to make laws, but within constitutional limits. Judicial review was meant to be a sparing power, used exceptionally when laws violated constitutional principles. However, what was once exceptional has increasingly become the norm. With vague drafting, bypassing of procedures, and lack of constitutional guidance, Indian law-making has frequently ended up in litigation. This trend not only undermines democratic trust but also burdens the judiciary and disrupts policy implementation.

    Why is this issue in the news?

    The controversy around the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was challenged in the Supreme Court within days of its enactment, highlights a disturbing pattern. Shockingly, the challengers included MPs themselves, indicating a lack of confidence in their own law-making. The Law Ministry has admitted that 35 central legislations and constitutional amendments were under challenge before the Supreme Court between 2016 and 2022. This points to a systemic crisis in legislative drafting and scrutiny.

    The constitutional design of law-making

    • No absolute sovereignty: Unlike Britain, Parliament in India operates within constitutional limits; no law can derogate from the Constitution.
    • Judicial review as exception: The power to strike down laws was meant to be sparing, not routine.
    • Current practice: Courts are increasingly forced into the role of a “parallel legislator” due to Parliament’s failures in precision and scrutiny.

    Why do laws end up in litigation

    • Constitutional scrutiny: Laws may violate constitutional guarantees or principles (e.g., Transgender Persons Act, 2019 vis-Ă -vis Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
    • Political theatre: Legal challenges are sometimes used as political tactics by opposition parties or even MPs.
    • Flawed drafting: Vague definitions, incoherent clauses, poor harmonisation with existing laws, and internal contradictions.

    Where does the system break down

    • Bypassing procedure: Bills introduced without notice; committees sidelined.
    • Rushed debates: Clause-by-clause discussion often ignored.
    • Poor consultation: Stakeholders and experts not adequately consulted.
    • Dense legalese: MPs unable to engage with overly technical drafting, reducing their role to party-line voting.

    The human cost of poor drafting

    • Economic loss: Unclear or contradictory laws disrupt industries and businesses.
    • Social injustice: Unequal punishments (e.g., transgender vs. women sexual abuse provisions).
    • Democratic deficit: MPs are unable to represent citizens effectively when legislation is incomprehensible.

    The case for a stronger Attorney-General (AG) role

    • Article 88 of the Constitution: AG has the right to participate in Parliament’s proceedings but rarely invoked.
    • Preventive review: AG can identify constitutional infirmities during debate itself.
    • Non-partisan guidance: AG’s counsel would enable lawmakers to vote more responsibly.
    • Better statutes: Well-drafted laws prevent substitution of legislative intent by judicial interpretation.

    Conclusion

    India’s constitutional democracy rests on the balance of powers between Parliament and the judiciary. When Parliament abdicates its responsibility of precise and constitutional law-making, the courts inevitably step in, eroding this balance. Institutionalising preventive constitutional review within Parliament, particularly through a proactive role for the Attorney-General, can ensure that legislation serves people effectively without routinely ending up in litigation. A robust democracy demands laws that are clear, just, and constitutionally sound before they leave the House.

    Value Addition

    What procedural lapses in Parliament lead to flawed laws?

    • Bypassing Committees: Less than 25% of Bills (2019–2023) were sent to Parliamentary Standing Committees, compared to 60–70% in earlier decades. This reduces scrutiny and expert input.
    • Rushed Legislation: Important laws such as the Farm Acts (2020) and the Aadhaar Bill (2016) were passed as Money Bills to bypass Rajya Sabha, undermining debate.
    • Poor Stakeholder Consultation: Unlike developed democracies, draft bills in India are rarely put out for public comments. (E.g., Data Protection Bill, 2019, was tabled without thorough consultation)
    • Clause-by-Clause Neglect: Debates are cut short; MPs often do not engage with technical legal provisions due to lack of time and expertise.
    • Opaque Drafting Process: Drafting happens primarily within ministries with little parliamentary/legal vetting before introduction.
    • ARC 2nd Report (Ethics in Governance): Calls for greater pre-legislative scrutiny and institutional strengthening of committees.

    How does flawed drafting affect democracy and society?

    • Judicial Overreach: Poorly worded statutes lead to constant constitutional challenges (e.g., NJAC Act struck down in 2015, Transgender Rights Act 2019 contradictions). The Judiciary ends up legislating by interpretation.
    • Erosion of Parliamentary Sovereignty: Frequent judicial invalidation makes Parliament look ineffective, undermining public trust.
    • Democratic Deficit: Laws in dense legalese alienate both MPs and citizens, reducing informed participation.
    • Economic Uncertainty: Unclear laws discourage investment (e.g., retrospective taxation case leading to Vodafone arbitration).
    • Social Injustice: Disparities in sentencing/punishment (e.g., lower penalties for abuse of transgender persons than for women) perpetuate inequality.
    • Law Commission Report (2008, 210th Report): Identified vague language and excessive delegation as reasons why laws face repeated judicial strikes.

    Comparative Perspective

    • UK: Parliamentary sovereignty model; no judicial review of primary legislation, but House of Lords Committees scrutinise bills heavily pre-enactment.
    • USA: Strong judicial review, but bills are subject to Congressional hearings and exhaustive committee scrutiny with expert testimonies before passage.
    • Germany: Has a robust Bundesrat (Upper House) system where laws undergo constitutional and legal vetting before final passage.
    • India: Hybrid system; has judicial review, but Parliamentary scrutiny is weak. Unlike the US/UK, pre-legislative consultation is not institutionalised.

    Way Forward

    • Mandatory Committee Review: Make it compulsory for all non-Money Bills to be referred to standing/select committees.
    • Pre-legislative Consultation Policy (2014): Institutionalise it across all ministries with draft bills published in public domain.
    • Strengthening Legislative Research Services: Provide MPs with non-partisan legal/technical assistance (as in US Congressional Research Service).
    • Empowering the Attorney-General: Invoke Article 88 to ensure AG flags constitutional issues during debates.
    • Clarity & Accessibility: Draft laws in plain language versions for MPs and citizens, alongside legal text.
    • Judicial-Parliamentary Dialogue: Structured interactions between constitutional benches and parliamentary committees to ensure harmony.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC GS II] Individual Parliamentarian’s role as the national lawmaker is on a decline, which in turn, has adversely impacted the quality of debates and their outcome. Discuss.

    Linkage: The decline in the individual role of MPs as lawmakers, noted in the PYQ (2019), directly links to the article’s theme of flawed law-making. Dense legalese, party whip culture, and bypassed scrutiny reduce MPs’ capacity for meaningful debate. This weakens legislative quality and pushes more laws into judicial review.

  • [23rd August 2025] Set the guardrails for AI use in courtrooms

    Mentors Comment

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is steadily entering the Indian judiciary, promising efficiency in a system burdened with nearly five crore pending cases. However, without proper guardrails, it risks undermining the very foundation of justice. The recent Kerala High Court guidelines mark India’s first attempt at framing policy around AI use in judicial processes. This is a critical juncture where technology and justice intersect demanding careful balance between innovation and accountability.

    Introduction

    The integration of Artificial Intelligence into courts represents a paradigm shift in India’s judicial landscape. While AI tools such as transcription, translation, and defect detection offer solutions to systemic inefficiencies, their unregulated use could lead to serious ethical and legal risks. From mistranslations of legal terminology to hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs), the challenges are real. The need of the hour is a structured framework that ensures AI strengthens, rather than weakens, the judiciary’s integrity and human-centric decision-making.

    The Growing Relevance of AI in Courts

    • First policy initiative: In July 2025, the Kerala High Court released the “Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary,” the first of its kind in India.
    • Case Management & Reducing Pendency: AI can assist in case listing, tracking, and prioritization to improve efficiency. Eg: The Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE) developed by the Supreme Court helps judges analyze case facts quickly.
    • Enhancing Transparency & Access to Justice: AI chatbots and online portals assist litigants in understanding procedures, filing cases, and accessing justice without middlemen. Eg: The Supreme Court’s AI-driven translation project ‘SUVAS’ (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) translates judgments into regional languages to empower citizens.

    Why are AI-enabled court processes risky?

    • Mistranslation risks: In India, the Supreme Court’s AI-based translation initiative SUVAS once mistranslated “leave granted” as “chhutti manzoor” (holiday approved) in Hind
    • Hallucinations in AI: LLMs such as Whisper generate fictitious phrases when encountering pauses, leading to unreliable records.
    • Bias in legal research: AI search results may amplify user patterns, invisibilising relevant precedents, impacting fair adjudication.
    • Reductionist adjudication: AI risks turning nuanced judicial reasoning into mere rule-based inference, undermining human judgment.

    How is AI being used in courts today?

    • Pilot tools: Market tools are in test use for transcription of oral arguments and witness depositions, though without timelines or safeguards.
    • Manual checks: Current safeguards include retired judges and translators manually vetting AI-generated judgments.
    • Risk of dependency: Courts adopting AI pilots without frameworks risk becoming dependent on vendors without sustainable adoption plans.

    What are the guardrails necessary for responsible AI use? 

    • Critical AI literacy: Judges, lawyers and staff need capacity-building to understand both potential and limitations of AI.
    • Transparency rights: Litigants should be informed if AI is used in research or judgment-writing; they should also have the right to opt out.
    • Procurement standards: Courts need standardised procurement guidelines to assess reliability, explainability, data handling, and vendor compliance.
    • Dedicated tech offices: The Vision Document for Phase III of the eCourts Project suggests creating technology offices to guide courts in evaluating and adopting AI tools.

    The way forward for AI in judiciary

    • Balanced adoption: AI must serve the ends of justice, not replace human reasoning.
    • Infrastructure readiness: Reliable internet and hardware are prerequisites before full-scale deployment.
    • Oversight and accountability: Independent monitoring systems and ethical review frameworks must be built into adoption.

    Conclusion

    AI can be a transformative force in India’s judiciary, addressing inefficiencies in a system struggling under massive case pendency. But technology without guardrails risks introducing new layers of error, bias, and opacity. The ultimate purpose of judicial reform must remain the same, to deliver fair, timely, and human-centred justice. Clear guidelines, transparency, and ethical oversight will determine whether AI strengthens or weakens the rule of law in India.

    Value Addition
    AI is already being deployed in judicial systems worldwide to improve efficiency, accessibility, and decision-making.

    1. Legal Interpretation Aid: Judges in the U.S. used AI to clarify the meaning of complex legal terms during sentencing appeals.
    2. Victim Impact Statement: Arizona courts allowed AI to recreate a victim’s voice for delivering impact statements.
    3. Affordable Legal Services: Garfield AI in the UK provides cheap legal documents, reducing case backlog.
    4. Responsible AI Use Rules: California courts framed formal guidelines for safe AI adoption in judicial work.
    5. Transcription & Translation (India): Supreme Court uses AI for live transcription and translation of hearings.
    6. Case Summarization (India): Nyay-Darpan delivers summaries and similar case retrieval in consumer law disputes.
    7. Case Classification (Brazil): AI model routes Supreme Court cases, cutting delays in document handling.
    8. AI Judge for Small Claims (China): Smart Courts handle repetitive small cases via AI systems.
    9. Judicial Summaries (Brazil): AI tools assist in generating summaries, easing court management.
    10. Access to Justice (Canada): Botler AI chatbot helps citizens understand rights in harassment cases.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] E-Governance is not only about utilization of technology but also about the ‘use value’ of information. Explain.

    Linkage: The 2018 UPSC question on E-Governance and ‘use value’ of information directly links to AI in judiciary: while AI can speed up translations, research, and transcription, its real worth lies in enhancing accessibility, transparency, and fairness in justice delivery—not just technological adoption.

  • Supreme Court interventions in Civil–Criminal overlap Cases

    Why in the News?

    In August 2025, the Supreme Court intervened twice to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in essentially civil disputes.

    About Civil and Criminal Cases:

    • Civil cases involve disputes between individuals or organisations and are mostly governed by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The aim is to resolve rights and duties, usually through compensation (damages) or injunctions. Examples: property disputes, contract breaches, divorce, custody, money recovery.
    • Criminal cases involve offences against the state or society. The objective is punishment and deterrence. Initiated by the state prosecutor. Examples: theft, cheating, assault, murder.
    • Burden of proof:
      • Civil cases: Decided on a preponderance of probabilities (more likely than not).
      • Criminal cases: Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    • Dual Cases: Some acts can give rise to both civil and criminal liability. For dual proceedings, there must be proof of criminal intent before entering the commercial or personal relationship.
    • Timelines: Data from the National Judicial Data Grid (2025) shows civil cases are slower (avg. 4.91 years) compared to many criminal cases (70% disposed within a year).

    Recent Supreme Court Actions:

    • Rajasthan plywood dispute case (Aug 13, 2025): SC held there was no criminal breach of trust in a simple sale transaction. Denial of pre-arrest bail by the High Court was overturned.
    • Allahabad HC case (Aug 4, 2025): SC criticised a judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a business transaction dispute, calling it a “mockery of justice”. The judge was temporarily barred from handling criminal cases, later reinstated after CJI intervention.
      • The SC clarified that civil disputes cannot be turned into criminal prosecutions unless fraud or criminal intent is clearly shown.
    [UPSC 2016] With reference to the ‘Gram Nyayalaya Act’, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases.

    2. The Act allows local social activists as mediators/reconciliators.

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • Removal of High Court Judges

    Why in the News?

    Lok Sabha Speaker has initiated removal proceedings against a Judge of the Allahabad High Court by admitting a motion signed by 146 members and forming a three-member inquiry committee.

    About Appointment of High Court Judges:

    • Constitutional Basis: Article 217 of the Constitution of India.
    • Appointing Authority: President of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Governor of the concerned State, and Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
    • Collegium System: The proposal is initiated by the High Court’s Chief Justice, forwarded through the Chief Minister and Governor, and decided by the CJI along with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
    • Chief Justice Posting Policy: Chief Justices are appointed from outside the State to ensure impartiality.
    • Transfers: The CJI and senior-most judges of the Supreme Court decide transfers to maintain judicial independence.

    Removal Process:

    • Grounds: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Procedure: Impeachment process under Articles 124(4) and 217, and Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    • Initiation: Motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
    • Inquiry: 3-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist investigates the charges.
    • Voting Requirement: Two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament for removal.
    • In-House Mechanism: CJI can initiate internal inquiries and advise resignation in serious cases.

    Other Notable Cases:

    • Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Faced impeachment for financial misconduct; motion failed in Lok Sabha.
    • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Resigned after Rajya Sabha voted for removal over fund misappropriation.
    • Justice K. Veeraswamy: Corruption case remained unresolved until his death.
    • Justice Shamit Mukherjee (2003), Justice Nirmal Yadav (2008), Justice S.N. Shukla (2017): Faced criminal charges for corruption after in-house inquiries.
    [UPSC 2007] Consider the following statements:

    1. The mode of removal of a Judge of a High Court in India is the same as that of the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

    2. After retirement from office, a permanent Judge of a High Court cannot plead or act in any court or before any authority in India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only * (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • Doctrine of Legal Insanity

    Why in the News?

    The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a double murder convict citing legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (Section 22 BNS), stressing the need to distinguish it from medical insanity and improve mental health investigations.

    About Legal Insanity:

    • Definition: Legal insanity refers to a mental condition where the accused cannot understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offence.
    • Legal Basis: Codified under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860); based on the Mc’Naughten Rule (1843) from English law.
    • Presumption of Sanity: Law presumes every person is sane unless proven otherwise; burden of proof lies on the accused (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act).
    • Timing Requirement: Insanity must be present at the time of the offence—not before or after.
    • Legal vs. Medical Insanity: Legal insanity (court-recognised) is different from medical insanity (clinical diagnosis); only the former is valid for defence.
    • Terminology: Section 22 BNS uses the phrase “unsoundness of mind” instead of “insanity”.
    • Exclusions: Mental illness, abnormal behaviour, or psychiatric history alone do not qualify.
    • Test Applied: Based on cognitive incapacity—whether the person knew the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness (legal or moral) of the act.
    • Underlying Principle: Based on “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – no crime without a guilty mind.

    Important Judicial Precedents:

    • Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration (1969): Insanity defence rejected—accused made rational statements and showed no mental disorder post-crime.
    • Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Accused had paranoid schizophrenia and was found incapable of understanding the act—acquitted under Section 84.
    • Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Court held that not all mentally ill persons qualify; only proven legal insanity is valid.
    • Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal (2015): Acquittal granted—prosecution failed to prove sanity; accused’s conduct supported unsoundness of mind.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such a prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2