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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • [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 â‚č1 lakh generally
        • Below â‚č5 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 â‚č 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.

  • CJI assures ‘complete transparency’ in Collegium System

    Why in the News?

    Recently, CJI B.R. Gavai affirmed that the collegium system will ensure merit, transparency, and inclusive representation, and will not be swayed by external pressures.

    What is the Collegium System?

    • About: The Collegium System is the process by which judges are appointed and transferred in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
    • Origin: It was developed by the Supreme Court itself and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
    • Purpose: It aims to ensure judicial independence by minimizing the role of the executive in judicial appointments.
    • Basis for Appointments:
      • Supreme Court Judges: Under Article 124, the President appoints judges after consulting relevant judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts.
      • High Court Judges: Under Article 217, appointments are made by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India, Governor of the State, and Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
    • Structure of the Collegium:
      • Supreme Court Collegium: It consists of 5 judges — the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
      • High Court Collegium: It comprises the Chief Justice of the High Court and the two senior-most judges of that High Court.

    Qualifications for SC Judges:

    • Citizenship: Must be an Indian citizen.
    • Judicial Experience: At least 5 years as a High Court judge or 10 years as an advocate in one or more High Courts.
    • Alternative Route: Can also be a distinguished jurist, in the President’s opinion.

    Qualifications for HC Judges:

    • Experience: Must have held a judicial office for 10 years or practiced as an advocate for 10 years in a High Court.
    • Bar Enrollment: Must be enrolled with the Bar Council of India.

    Evolution of the Collegium System:

    • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive had primacy in appointments, and the CJI’s opinion was not binding.
    • Second Judges Case (1993): The Court reinterpreted “consultation” to mean “concurrence”, giving primacy to the judiciary and formally creating the Collegium System.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On Presidential Reference, the Collegium was expanded to five members — the CJI + 4 senior-most judges.

    How does it Work?

    • Appointment of Chief Justice of India (CJI): The outgoing CJI recommends the next CJI, based on seniority. The Law Minister forwards it to the PM, who advises the President.
    • Appointment of Other SC Judges: The CJI initiates the proposal after consulting Collegium members and the senior-most judge from the concerned High Court.
    • Appointment of High Court Judges: Initiated by the High Court Chief Justice, approved by the High Court Collegium, and forwarded via the state government to the Union Law Ministry.
    [UPSC 2012] What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?

    1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.

    2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.

    3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.

    4. All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • India’s legal bridge is one of reciprocity, not roadblocks 

    Why in the News?

    In May 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) officially put into effect new rules called the “Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India.” This is a major step in India’s legal system, as it allows foreign lawyers to work in India in a regulated way while protecting Indian legal standards.

    What is the Bar Council of India (BCI)? 

    The BCI is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the legal profession and legal education in India.

    Why did the Bar Council of India (BCI) enforce the new rules?

    • To Regulate and Monitor Foreign Legal Practice in India: With growing cross-border trade and legal demands, there was a need to formally regulate how foreign lawyersoperate in India. The rules provide a clear framework for registration, scope of work, and ethical standards. Eg: Foreign law firms advising Indian clients on international mergers or arbitration cases must now register and follow BCI rules, ensuring accountability.
    • To Ensure Reciprocity and Protect Indian Legal Interests: The rules were introduced to allow foreign legal entry based on mutual terms, ensuring Indian lawyers are treated fairly abroad. It also prevents unregulated entry that could undermine local legal professionals. Eg: U.S. law firms can now operate under defined conditions, but only if similar access is given to Indian lawyers in the U.S., ensuring balanced opportunities.

    What are the key criticisms of the BCI rules by U.S. law firms?

    • Procedural Restrictions as Non-Tariff Barriers: U.S. law firms argue that the BCI rules impose excessive procedural requirements that act as a non-trade barrier, limiting their entry into India. Eg: Mandatory disclosures and registration conditions are seen as restrictive and protectionist.
    • Conflicts with U.S. Confidentiality Norms: The requirement to reveal the “nature of legal work” and “client identity” allegedly conflicts with the American Bar Association (ABA) rules on client confidentiality. Eg: U.S. lawyers are bound by rules that prevent even general disclosure of client details.
    • Lack of Reciprocity and Sudden Implementation: The fly-in, fly-out rule imposes limits (e.g., 60 days stay) without ensuring similar access for Indian lawyers in the U.S., and critics say the rules were implemented without a transition phase. Eg: No equivalent restrictions exist for U.S. law firms visiting India earlier, but now sudden compliance is required.

    Why are legal services excluded from trade agreements in India?

    • Constitutional Separation from Trade: Legal services fall under Entries 77 and 78 of the Union List (administration of justice and legal profession), not under trade and commerce entries. Hence, they are constitutionally excluded from trade negotiations. Eg: In the UK-India Free Trade Agreement negotiations, India intentionally excluded legal services, reinforcing this constitutional boundary.
    • Nature of Legal Practice as Personal Service: Indian courts have ruled that legal practice is a contract of personal service, not a commercial activity, making it unsuitable for inclusion in trade deals. Eg: In Bar of Indian Lawyers vs D.K. Gandhi (2024), the court held that legal services are distinct from trade or business, confirming their exclusion from trade frameworks.

    How do the BCI rules ensure a balance between openness and standards?

    • Structured entry for foreign lawyers and firms: The BCI rules permit foreign law firms and practitioners to operate in India through a registration-based model, ensuring regulated access rather than blanket entry. Eg: Rules 3 and 4 allow entry subject to ethical and professional conditions, preventing unregulated practice.
    • Fly-in, fly-out provisions with safeguards: The rules enable temporary legal visits under the fly-in, fly-out model, while imposing limits on duration (60 days/year) and type of legal work, ensuring such visits stay within approved bounds. Eg: Under Rule 3(1) proviso, a foreign lawyer may advise on foreign law but cannot represent clients in Indian courts.
    • Flexibility with accountability: The rules allow the BCI to assess foreign qualifications and credentials case-by-case (Rule 6), ensuring professional standards are upheld without being rigid. Eg: Rule 4(h) requires a ‘good standing’ certificate, but the BCI can make exceptions after holistic verification.

    Which laws and judgments guide India’s regulation of foreign legal practice?

    • Constitutional Framework under Union List: Legal practice in India is governed under Entries 77 and 78 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India), making it a sovereign regulatory domain, distinct from trade and commerce. Eg: Legal services are not treated as tradable commodities, hence excluded from Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
    • Bar Council of India Act and Professional Standards: The Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules provide the statutory mandate for regulating legal education, enrolment, and conduct of lawyers in India. Eg: The BCI Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms (2023) ensure ethical compliance and reciprocity.
    • Bar Council of India vs A.K. Balaji (2018): Held that foreign firms can’t set up offices but can advise clients on fly-in, fly-out basis.
    • Lawyers Collective vs BCI (2009): Reiterated that foreign firms must follow Indian law to practice in any capacity.

    What are the implications of applied ethics?

    • Guides Real-World Decision Making: Applied ethics helps individuals and institutions make morally sound decisions in specific practical fields such as medicine, law, business, or environmental policy. Eg: In medical ethics, principles like informed consent ensure that patients are not treated without their knowledge or will.
    • Resolves Ethical Dilemmas in Professional Practice: It provides frameworks to address conflicting moral values in complex situations, balancing individual rights, social good, and professional duty. Eg: In business ethics, whistleblowing policies balance the duty to the employer with the public’s right to know about harmful practices.

    Note: Applied Ethics is a branch of ethics that deals with the practical application of moral principles to real-world issues and professional fields.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Bilateral Legal Dialogue Mechanisms: India can establish a structured legal diplomacy framework with countries like the U.S. to address concerns through dialogue rather than trade disputes.
    • Introduce a Phased Liberalisation Model with Safeguards: India can consider a calibrated liberalisation of legal services with clearly defined transition periods, limited practice areas (e.g., foreign law, arbitration), and stringent professional standards to ensure reciprocity and ethical compliance while maintaining regulatory control.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2018] India and USA are two large democracies. Examine the basic tenets on which the two political systems are based.

    Linkage:  These basic tenets influence legal and regulatory philosophies. The article underscores that India’s rules are not “roadblocks” but a “balanced approach” to liberalizing its legal ecosystem in a “structured and regulated manner. The understanding of the foundational differences in how these two democracies approach regulation, particularly in a professional service sector, is crucial for comprehending India’s justification for its “legal bridge of reciprocity.

  • Appointment and Removal of High Court Judges

    Why in the News?

    The Centre will bring a motion of removal against a Judge of the Allahabad High Court and has initiated the process of building an all-party consensus for this action.

    Qualifications of Judges of High Court:

    • Article 217(2) of the Constitution states that a person is qualified if:
      • They have held judicial office in India for at least 10 years, or
      • Have been an advocate in a High Court (or more than one in succession) for at least 10 years.
    • Tenure: As per Article 217(1), a High Court judge holds office till the age of 62 years.
    • Disputes over Age: Under Article 217(3), if a question arises regarding a judge’s age, the President, in consultation with the CJI, makes the final decision.

    Appointment Process of High Court Judges:

    • Constitutional Basis: The Article 217 of the Constitution provides that High Court judges are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Governor of the state, and, in the case of judges (not Chief Justices), the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
    • Role of the Collegium System: The Collegium, comprising the CJI and 2 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, plays a key role in recommending names for appointments. It ensures collaborative decision-making and maintains the independence of the judiciary.
    • Procedure:
      1. The Chief Justice of the High Court initiates the recommendation.
      2. The proposal is forwarded to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor.
      3. The Governor sends it to the Union Law Minister, who places it before the Prime Minister, and then the President for final approval.
    • Policy for Chief Justices: To prevent local bias, Chief Justices of High Courts are generally appointed from outside the state.
    • Appointments and Transfers: The CJI and senior judges of the Supreme Court also decide on transfers of High Court judges, ensuring judicial autonomy and minimizing executive influence.

    Removal:

    • Process: Judges of the High Court (and Supreme Court) can only be removed through removal, not by executive action.
      • Requires a motion signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
      • The motion is examined by a three-member committee.
      • If the committee finds grounds, the motion is debated and must be passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.
    • Legal Framework: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 outlines the detailed procedure for investigating and acting upon misconduct by judges.
    • In-House Inquiry Mechanism: For internal disciplinary matters:
      • The CJI may order a preliminary inquiry based on credible complaints.
      • A three-judge panel is constituted if allegations are serious.
      • If the committee confirms misconduct, the CJI may ask the judge to resign.
      • If the judge refuses, the judicial work is withdrawn, and removal may be considered.

    Historical Removal Efforts:

    • No judge has been impeached in India, though attempts have been made, including the failed motions against Justice V Ramaswami (1993) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011).
    • Justice V Ramaswami (1993): Faced removal for financial misconduct, but the motion failed in the Lok Sabha.
    • Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Resigned after removal proceedings for misappropriating funds.
    • Justice K Veeraswamy: Chief Justice of Madras HC, investigated for corruption but challenged the investigation. The case remained unresolved until his death in 2010.
    • Justice Shamit Mukherjee (2003), Justice Nirmal Yadav (2008), and Justice SN Shukla (2017): Faced criminal charges for corruption after in-house inquiries found substantial evidence against them.

     

    [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

     

  • Making a Law cannot amount to Contempt of Court: Supreme Court

    Why in the News?

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that any law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be considered an act of contempt of court.

    Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Issue:

    • Context: The Court heard a 2012 contempt plea, alleging that the Chhattisgarh government violated its 2011 ruling against supporting Salwa Judum and arming tribals as SPOs.
    • Disputed Law: Petitioners argued the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 violated the earlier ruling.
    • Court’s Clarification: Passing a new law is within the plenary powers of legislatures and cannot be treated as contempt unless declared unconstitutional.
    • Proper Remedy: The correct approach is to challenge the law’s validity, not to file for contempt.
    • Separation of Powers: The Court upheld that legislature can modify or override judgments through new laws, if they respect constitutional boundaries.

    About Contempt of Court:

    • Purpose: Contempt of court refers to actions or behaviors that are disrespectful to, or that obstruct or interfere with, the administration of justice by a court. It protects the authority and dignity of the judiciary from acts that obstruct or interfere with justice.
    • Constitutional Basis:
      • Article 129 allows the Supreme Court to punish for its own contempt.
      • Article 215 grants the same power to High Courts.
      • Article 19(2) permits reasonable speech restrictions for contempt cases.
    • Legal Definition: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt; the 2006 amendment allows truth and good faith as defences.
    • Types:
      • Civil Contempt is the wilful disobedience of court orders.
      • Criminal Contempt involves actions that scandalise the court, interfere with proceedings, or obstruct justice.
    • Punishment: Offenders may face up to 6 months imprisonment, or a â‚č2,000 fine, or both.
    • What Is Not Contempt: Fair reporting and genuine criticism of judgments after disposal are not considered contempt.
    [UPSC 2022] Consider the following statements:

    1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.

    2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.

    3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.

    4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • Permanent Lok Adalats 

    Why in the News?

    Permanent Lok Adalats in as many as 16 districts of Rajasthan have ceased functioning owing to the non-extension of tenure of their presiding officers and members.

    About Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs) 

    • Legal Basis: PLAs are statutory bodies established under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
    • Establishment: They were introduced in 2002 to offer speedy and affordable dispute resolution for public utility services.
    • Disputes Handled: PLAs resolve issues related to transport (air, road, water), postal, telecom, electricity, water supply, sanitation, healthcare, and insurance.
    • Composition: Each PLA has a Chairman (a current or retired District Judge or higher) and 2 members with experience in the relevant public utility sectors.
    • Functioning: Unlike regular Lok Adalats, PLAs operate on a continuous basis and are always available for dispute resolution.
    • Jurisdiction Limit: They can hear cases involving claims up to â‚č1 crore but cannot take up non-compoundable criminal cases.
    • Unique Power: If conciliation fails, the PLA has the authority to adjudicate the dispute and issue a final and BINDING award, just like a civil court.

    Back2Basics: Lok Adalats vs Permanent Lok Adalats

    Lok Adalats Permanent Lok Adalats 
    Nature Ad hoc, held occasionally Permanent, functional continuously
    Jurisdiction Broad (civil, compoundable criminal, family, etc.) Limited to public utility service disputes
    Dispute Stage Usually post-litigation Pre-litigation stage only
    Panel Composition Judicial officers, lawyers, social workers Chairman (Judge) + 2 experts in utility services
    Conciliation Role Only conciliatory; no decision if no settlement Can adjudicate if no settlement is reached
    Decision Binding only if parties agree Award is final and binding, with no appeal
    Legal Status Decree of a civil court Also a civil court decree, but with adjudication power
    Appeal Provision No appeal, but fresh suit possible No appeal, but constitutional remedies may apply

     

    [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

     

  • Justice B.R. Gavai takes charge as 52nd CJI

    Why in the News?

    Justice B.R. Gavai has been sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI).

    About the Chief Justice of India:

    • The CJI is the head of the Supreme Court and the highest-ranking judicial officer in the country.
    • As the “Master of the Roster,” the CJI has the exclusive authority to:
      • Constitute benches
      • Allocate cases among judges
      • Decide the schedule of hearings
    • The CJI leads the judicial and administrative functions of the Supreme Court.
      • Holds administrative control as recognised in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1997).
    • The CJI is referred to as “first among equals” among Supreme Court judges.

    Powers and functions of the CJI:

    • Judicial Functions:
      • Assigns judges to the Constitution Benches. (Article 145)
      • Handles interpretation of important legal and constitutional matters. (Article 145)
      • Exercises judicial leadership by steering jurisprudential direction. (Article 145)
      • Exercises judicial authority in matters of national significance. (Article 136)
      • Protects fundamental rights through the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction. (Article 32)
    • Administrative Functions:
      • Maintains court roster and case listing. (Derived from judicial precedent and administrative conventions)
      • Supervises court staff and administration. (Based on administrative authority of the CJI)
      • Ensures smooth functioning of the Supreme Court. (Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
      • Holds disciplinary authority over subordinate judicial officers. (Administrative powers acknowledged in precedents)
      • Engages in administration of justice at the highest level. (Overarching responsibility under Article 145)
    • Advisory Function:
      • Provides advisory input when consulted by the President. (Article 143)

    Appointment and Terms:

    • Article 124 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to appoint the CJI.
    • Traditionally, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed.
    • Exceptions to this practice:
      • 1973: Justice A.N. Ray appointed over 3 senior judges.
      • 1977: Justice M.H. Beg appointed over Justice H.R. Khanna.
    • Qualifications as outlined in Article 124(3):
      • Must be a citizen of India, and:
      • Served at least five years as a High Court judge, or
      • Practised at least ten years as a High Court advocate, or
      • Deemed a distinguished jurist by the President.

    Selection Procedure:

    • Governed by the Memorandum of Procedure for Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
    • The Union Law Minister seeks the outgoing CJI’s recommendation.
    • The recommendation is processed as follows:
      • Sent to the Prime Minister by the Law Ministry.
      • Prime Minister advises the President.
      • President of India appoints the new CJI.
    • No specific timeline is defined — the recommendation must be made at the “appropriate time”.

    Tenure and Removal:

    • CJI serves until the age of 65 years.
    • Can only be removed through removal under Article 124(4):
      • Requires approval by both Houses of Parliament.
      • Must be supported by:
        • A majority of total membership, and
        • A two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
      • Grounds for removal: Proven misbehavior or incapacity.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to the 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 the prior permission of the President of India.
    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment as the Supreme Court does

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • How the judiciary maintains accountability

    Why in the News?

    The recent remarks made by the Vice-President of India about the role of judges have raised serious concerns and need to be carefully examined.

    What concerns arise from the Vice-President’s comments on judges’ roles in India?

    • Undermines Judicial Authority: Calling judges a “super parliament” questions the legitimacy of judicial review — a core function to uphold the Constitution. Eg: Criticism of court directions to Governors on bill assent.
    • Erosion of Constitutional Balance: His comments disrupt the delicate balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary by implying judicial overreach without constitutional basis. Eg: In cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court protected constitutional principles through its basic structure doctrine—critical for maintaining checks and balances.
    • Erodes Public Trust: Statements from high offices may weaken public faith in judicial impartiality and independence. Eg: Comments implying judges are unaccountable raise doubts on rule of law.

    Why is the term “super parliament” problematic in India’s parliamentary system?

    • Contradicts the Principle of Popular Sovereignty: Parliament derives its authority from the people; no organ, including the judiciary, can override it. Calling the judiciary a “super parliament” distorts this hierarchy. Eg: In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court clarified that judicial review strengthens—not replaces—parliamentary supremacy.
    • Misrepresents the Role of Judicial Review: Judicial review is a constitutional mechanism to check the validity of laws—not an attempt to legislate. Calling it a “super parliament” falsely equates judicial scrutiny with lawmaking. Eg: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure without encroaching on the legislative domain.
    • Undermines Separation of Powers: The term falsely suggests that the judiciary exceeds its mandate, eroding the balance between the three organs of government enshrined in the Constitution. Eg: The L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) judgment upheld judicial review as part of the basic structure, emphasizing that courts act within their defined constitutional limits.

    How does the Constitution ensure judicial independence and separation of powers?

    • Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
    • Financial Independence of the Judiciary: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.
    • Constitutional Authority of Judicial Review: The Constitution explicitly empowers courts to review laws and executive actions for constitutional validity, preserving checks and balances between organs of government. Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure.

    What justifies the judiciary setting deadlines for the President to clear Bills in line with popular sovereignty?

    • Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
    • Financial Independence of the Judiciary
       The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.

    Why is the claim that judges are above the law considered irrational?

    • Judges are bound by the Constitution and Rule of Law: Judges operate strictly within the constitutional framework and are accountable to it. Any violation of constitutional provisions by a judge amounts to “proved misbehaviour” and can lead to removal. Eg: Article 124(4) allows Parliament to impeach a Supreme Court judge for proven misbehaviour or incapacity, showing they are not immune from the law.
    • Parliament can override judicial decisions by making new laws: If the judiciary overreaches or issues controversial verdicts, Parliament can counter it through legislative action, reinforcing democratic accountability. Eg: After the Shah Bano case (1985), Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively reversing the Court’s judgment.

    Way forward: 

    • Respect Constitutional Boundaries: All constitutional authorities should uphold the principle of separation of powers and avoid statements that may undermine public trust in institutions.
    • Promote Constructive Dialogue: Encourage open, respectful discussions between the judiciary and executive to resolve differences while maintaining democratic values.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2020] Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.

    Linkage:  Judicial action (issuing guidelines to the executive) to the separation of powers doctrine. It discusses judicial legislation, which is when courts effectively create law, blurring the lines between the judiciary and legislature. This raises concerns about accountability – to whom is the judiciary accountable when it is perceived to be legislating?