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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • 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 (₹5,000 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-à-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

     

  • [29th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Justice on hold: India’s courts are clogged

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases ?

    Linkage: The article states that Lok Adalats, for instance, have successfully resolved over 27.5 crore cases between 2021 and March 2025, including pre-litigation and pending court cases. This question directly addresses Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, which are highlighted in the sources as a “promising way forward to ease the burden on traditional courts and deliver quicker, more affordable, and citizen-friendly justice.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:   India’s judicial delays have come under sharp focus due to the enormous case backlog—over 5 crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district courts. This crisis undermines the public’s trust in the legal system, as highlighted by President Droupadi Murmu’s reference to the ‘black coat syndrome’. The issue has resurfaced in light of systemic problems such as judicial vacancies, ineffective case management, and poor infrastructure, especially at the district level, where civil cases face the longest delays. The situation has sparked urgent calls for reform, improved judge strength, and the expansion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like Lok Adalats, which have successfully resolved over 27.5 crore cases since 2021.

    Today’s editorial analyses India’s judicial delays. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, India’s problem of slow court cases has gained attention because more than 5 crore cases are still waiting to be heard in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district courts.

    Why is timely justice vital for public trust?

    • Maintains faith in the rule of law: When justice is delivered promptly, people believe that the system works and protects them. Eg: The Jessica Lal murder case initially led to public outrage due to delays, but the eventual conviction in a fast-tracked appeal restored some public confidence.
    • Deters future crimes: Swift punishment sends a strong message that wrongdoing will not go unpunished, discouraging potential offenders. Eg: Fast-track courts for sexual assault cases post-Nirbhaya have increased deterrence and quicker resolution.
    • Reduces prolonged trauma for victims: Delayed trials prolong emotional and mental stress for victims and their families. Eg: In the 2002 Gujarat riots cases, delayed justice caused continued trauma to survivors; timely convictions like in the Best Bakery case brought some closure.
    • Prevents misuse of legal loopholes: Delays allow the accused to manipulate evidence, threaten witnesses, or use legal tricks to avoid punishment. Eg: In the Bhopal gas tragedy case, delay of over two decades led to very mild punishments, causing loss of trust in the judiciary.

    What causes structural delays in courts?

    • Judicial Vacancies: A shortage of judges leads to an overwhelming case burden on existing judges, slowing down the process. Eg: As of 2024, over 30% of High Court posts remain vacant across India, increasing pendency.
    • Procedural Inefficiencies: Outdated procedures, frequent adjournments, and lengthy documentation cause unnecessary delays. Eg: In civil suits, routine adjournments under Order XVII of CPC often delay hearings for years.
    • Inadequate Infrastructure: Lack of proper courtrooms, digital tools, and support staff hampers smooth functioning. Eg: Rural courts often lack basic IT infrastructure, affecting e-filing or virtual hearings.
    • Pending Government Cases: A large number of cases are filed by or against the government, clogging the judicial pipeline. Eg: Government is the biggest litigant, responsible for nearly 50% of pending cases.
    • Lack of Case Management Systems: Courts often don’t follow structured timelines or track progress systematically. Unlike fast-track courts, regular trial courts lack proper scheduling, leading to indefinite extensions.

    Why are civil cases slower in district courts?

    • Frequent Adjournments Requested by Parties: Parties often misuse the provision of adjournments to delay proceedings unnecessarily. Eg: In a property dispute in Uttar Pradesh, the defendant sought over 20 adjournments in 5 years, delaying the verdict significantly.
    • Insufficient Judicial Strength: A shortage of judges leads to excessive caseloads, slowing the pace of case disposal. Eg: In Madhya Pradesh, one district judge was handling over 2,000 cases, making timely resolution nearly impossible.
    • Delay in Filing and Responding to Documents: Government departments and advocates often delay submitting necessary replies or documents. Eg: In a civil suit against a municipal corporation in Maharashtra, a delay of 18 months occurred because the civic body failed to file its written statement on time.

    What role does ADR play in reducing pendency?

    • Eases Burden on Courts: ADR mechanisms like mediation, arbitration, and conciliation help resolve disputes outside the formal court system, thus reducing the number of cases pending in courts. Eg: In Delhi, the mediation centre at Tis Hazari Courts has resolved over 2 lakh cases since 2005, significantly easing judicial workload.
    • Faster and Cost-Effective Resolution: ADR offers a quicker, less expensive, and more flexible approach compared to traditional litigation, encouraging parties to settle early. Eg: In commercial disputes, arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act often concludes within 12–18 months, unlike civil suits which may take years.

    How effective are Lok Adalats in clearing backlogs?

    • High Volume Disposal: Lok Adalats are effective in disposing of a large number of cases quickly, especially compoundable civil and petty criminal cases.
      Eg: In the National Lok Adalat held in November 2023, over 1 crore cases were settled in a single day, significantly reducing court backlog.
    • Reduced Litigation Time & Cost: They offer speedy and cost-free resolution, which encourages litigants to settle disputes without lengthy trials, thus clearing cases that would otherwise clog lower courts.
    • Binding and Final Awards: The decisions are legally binding, and there is no appeal, which ensures that the disposed cases do not re-enter the judicial system, helping in permanent reduction of pending cases.
    • Focus on Pre-litigation Cases: Lok Adalats also take up pre-litigation matters, preventing disputes from entering the formal court system, and thereby curbing future backlog.

    However, they are less effective for complex or non-compoundable cases (like serious criminal or constitutional matters), so their impact is limited to specific case types.

    What are the differences between ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and Lok Adalat? 

    • Scope and Types: ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is a broad umbrella that includes various methods like mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and conciliation. Lok Adalat is a specific type of ADR, institutionalized under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
    • Legal Status and Binding Nature: In ADR, some methods like arbitration are legally binding, while mediation/conciliation may not be. In Lok Adalat, the award is final, binding, and enforceable as a court decree with no appeal.
    • Formality and Cost: ADR mechanisms can range from formal (arbitration) to informal (mediation) and may involve fees. Lok Adalats are informal, cost-free, and designed for speedy resolution of civil and compoundable criminal cases.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutional Strengthening and Legal Awareness: Strengthen infrastructure and ensure regular training for mediators and conciliators. Promote legal literacy to make citizens aware of ADR mechanisms and Lok Adalats as effective alternatives to litigation.
    • Digital Integration and Monitoring: Introduce e-Lok Adalats, expand online dispute resolution (ODR), and use data-driven monitoring to track disposal rates and identify bottlenecks in the system for continuous improvement.

  • Veer Parivar Sahayata Yojana

    Why in the News?

    The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has launched the ‘Veer Parivar Sahayata Yojana’, aimed at improving legal aid for defence personnel and their families.

    Back2Basics: National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)

    • Established under: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in force from 1995)
    • Mandate: Ensure free, competent legal aid to the socially and economically disadvantaged
    • Leadership:
      • Patron-in-Chief: Chief Justice of India
      • Executive Chairman: Senior Supreme Court Judge
    • Core Functions:
      • Legal literacy campaigns
      • Lok Adalats for amicable dispute resolution
      • Legal aid in civil and criminal matters
      • Outreach in rural and vulnerable communities

    About Veer Parivar Sahayata Yojana:

    • Launched by: National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
    • Objective: Provide legal assistance to defence personnel, ex-servicemen, and their families.
    • Key Features:
      • Legal Clinics: Set up at Zilla, Rajya, and Kendra Sainik Boards
      • Welfare–Legal Integration: Sainik Boards become legal service hubs
      • Paralegal Volunteers: Defence families encouraged to participate, enhancing local legal access
    • Legal Assistance includes:
      • Land and property disputes
      • Matrimonial and family matters
      • Service-related entitlements
      • Utility/civil grievances (e.g., billing disputes)
      • Support for personnel in remote/conflict zones

    Free Legal Aid in India:

    • Constitutional Backing
      • Article 21 (FR): Access to justice as part of the right to life
      • Article 39A (DPSP): Legal aid and equal justice, added via 42nd Amendment Act, 1976
    • Legal Framework:
      • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Four-tier system—National, State, District, Taluka
      • Section 341, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Legal aid for indigent accused persons
    • Eligibility Criteria:
      • Women and children
      • Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
      • Persons with disabilities
      • Industrial workmen
      • Victims of disasters (natural or human-made)
      • Persons in custody or shelter homes
      • Economically weak (annual income:
        • Below ₹1 lakh generally
        • Below ₹5 lakh for Supreme Court cases)
    [UPSC 2020] In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens?

    1. Person with an annual income of less than Rs 1,00,000

    2. Transgender with an annual income of less than Rs 2,00,000

    3. Member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) with an annual income of less than ₹ 3,00,000

    4. All Senior Citizens

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 only * (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1 and 4 only

     

  • Looking inward: Reservation in Supreme Court

    Why in the News?

    Recently, for the first time ever, the Supreme Court of India has introduced a reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in hiring and promoting its non-judicial staff, such as assistants and attendants.

    What is the importance of the Supreme Court’s internal reservation policy?

    • Bridges the Gap Between Principle and Practice: For decades, the Court had delivered landmark judgments on affirmative action, but hadn’t applied those standards to its own staff. Eg: Judgments like Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj shaped national reservation policy, but internal implementation lagged until the 2025 reform.
    • Promotes Social Inclusion Within the Judiciary: By providing 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% for STs in administrative posts, the Court ensures better representation of marginalised communities within its own ecosystem. Eg: Of the 1,280 reserved posts, the majority are for junior assistants and attendants, opening real job opportunities for disadvantaged groups.

    Why was the Court late in applying affirmative action to its staff?

    • Lack of Leadership Will: The implementation was delayed due to the absence of decisive leadership within the Court to prioritise internal reforms. Eg: It took Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, the second Dalit CJI in the Court’s history, to initiate the reform in 2025, showing how transformational leadership can overcome systemic inertia.
    • Contradiction Between Principle and Practice:  Despite supporting reservations through judgments like Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj, the Court did not extend similar benefits to its own non-judicial staff until now.
    • Institutional Inertia and Exceptionalism: For nearly three decades since R.K. Sabharwal v State of Punjab (1995), the Court’s inaction on internal reservations reflected a reluctance to challenge status quo. Eg: While government departments and many High Courts had implemented SC/ST quotas, the Supreme Court remained an exception, showcasing negative exceptionalism despite advocating for equality externally.

    How have previous rulings influenced India’s reservation system?

    • R.K. Sabharwal (1995): Shifted the system from vacancy-based to post-based rosters to prevent exceeding the 50% quota cap.
    • M. Nagaraj (2006): Upheld reservation in promotions but required data on backwardness and administrative efficiency.
    • Jarnail Singh (2018): Removed the need to prove backwardness again for SCs/STs already listed.
    • Davinder Singh (2024): Allowed sub-classification within SCs/STs, affirming substantive equality over formal equality.

    Who led the push for reservation reform in the Supreme Court?

    • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai: Only the second Dalit CJI in history, he recognized the disconnect between the Court’s rulings and its internal practices and acted to correct it. Gavai also reportedly supports extending reservations to OBCs and other marginalized groups in the future.

    What challenges lie ahead in expanding the reservation to other groups?

    • Legal Ambiguity: Extension of reservations to OBCs, PwDs, and others lacks clear policy frameworks and quota specifications. Eg: The July 2025 Gazette mentions new categories but no defined implementation.
    • Institutional Inertia: Bureaucratic delays and reluctance to change slow down the adoption of new reservation measures. Eg: It took decades after R.K. Sabharwal (1995) to implement SC/ST reservations.
    • Balancing Equity and Efficiency: Concerns over merit and administrative efficiency may resist expansion of affirmative action. Eg: M. Nagaraj (2006) required data on backwardness and efficiency, which may be hard to apply internally.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalise Inclusive Policies: Finalise and implement a comprehensive reservation framework within the Supreme Court, ensuring clarity, transparency, and consistency with government norms for SCs, STs, OBCs, PwDs, and other eligible groups.
    • Strengthen Monitoring and Accountability: Establish a diversity oversight mechanism within the judiciary to track representation, address grievances, and ensure timely implementation of reservation provisions.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Despite comprehensive policies for equity and social justice, underprivileged sections are not yet getting the full benefits of affirmative action envisaged by the Constitution. Comment.

    Linkage: The concept of “affirmative action,” which is the foundation for reservation policies in India. The Supreme Court has been instrumental in shaping the contours of affirmative action through its landmark judgments over the years.