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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • [24th February 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: What has SC previously ruled on gag orders?

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q) What do understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (UPSC CSE 2014)

     

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on “freedom of speech and expression”  (2014), and A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks he becomes.” — M.K. Gandhi (2019).

    A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh imposed strict conditions, barring Allahbadia and his team from posting on social media until further notice and ordering him to surrender his passport to the police. These conditions go against previous Supreme Court rulings that warn against imposing excessive restrictions that limit personal freedom while granting temporary relief.

    Today’s editorial discusses temporary protection from arrest and the factors the Supreme Court considers when granting interim relief to an accused. This information is valuable for GS Paper 2 and 4 in the UPSC Mains examination.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    On February 18, the Supreme Court granted temporary protection from arrest to podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia.

    What stringent conditions did the Supreme Court impose on podcaster and influencer Ranveer Allahbadia? 

    • Prohibition on Social Media Activity: The Court barred Allahbadia and his associates from posting any content on YouTube or other audio/video platforms until further orders. Example: Similar restrictions were rejected in Mohammed Zubair’s case (2021), where the Court held that preventing social media activity violates free speech rights.
    • Surrender of Passport: He was directed to surrender his passport to the police to prevent him from leaving the country. Example: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court ruled that conditions like passport surrender must not be disproportionate or impossible to comply with.
    • Gag Order on Professional Work: The Court imposed a gag order restricting him from airing new content until further notice. Example: In Rehana Fathima’s case (2021), the Supreme Court overturned a similar order that restricted the activist from expressing her views online.
    • Monitoring of Public Statements: Allahbadia’s public statements and activities on digital platforms are subject to strict oversight to prevent further controversies. Example: In Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024), the Court struck down a bail condition requiring the accused to share their Google Maps location PIN, calling it an invasion of privacy.
    • Single Investigation for Multiple FIRs: The Court may consolidate the multiple FIRs against him under a single investigation to prevent harassment. Example: In Parteek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan (2022), the Supreme Court denounced the filing of multiple FIRs for the same offense as a form of state harassment.

    What factors does the top court consider when granting interim relief to an accused? 

    • Tampering with Evidence (Interfering with Investigation): The Court considers whether interim relief might allow the accused to destroy, fabricate, or conceal evidence. Example: In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court cautioned against imposing impossible bail conditions while ensuring the investigation remains uncompromised.
    • Nature and Gravity of the Offense: The seriousness of the alleged crime and its potential social impact are weighed when deciding on interim relief. Example: In Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020), interim bail was granted, with the Court emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of the law for political harassment.
    • Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Court considers the accused’s fundamental rights, particularly personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Example: In Frank Vitus v. NCB (2024), the Court struck down a bail condition requiring the accused to share their Google Maps location PIN, calling it a violation of privacy rights.
    • Flight Risk (Likelihood of Absconding): The Court evaluates whether the accused is likely to flee the country or jurisdiction to evade legal proceedings. Example: In Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), anticipatory bail was denied due to concerns about flight risk and the accused’s ability to influence the investigation.
    • Intimidation of Witnesses (Influencing or Threatening Witnesses): The possibility of the accused threatening, influencing, or coercing witnesses is assessed to ensure a fair trial. Example: In State of Gujarat v. Amit Shah (2010), bail was granted after the Court found no direct evidence suggesting that the accused would intimidate witnesses.

    What has the Court previously stated about gag orders?

    • Gag Orders Violate Freedom of Speech: The Court has consistently held that gag orders restricting speech violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Example: In Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Court refused to restrict Zubair from tweeting while on bail, stating it would create a chilling effect on free speech.
    • Prior Restraint is Constitutionally Disfavored: The Court has cautioned that prior restraint—preventing speech before it occurs—is unconstitutional except in exceptional circumstances like public order or national security. Example: In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Court ruled that prior censorship is permissible only when there is compelling public interest.
    • Gag Orders Must Be Proportional: Any restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored and proportionate to the harm being prevented. Broad, vague restrictions are unconstitutional. Example: In Rehana Fathima v. State of Kerala (2021), the Court struck down a bail condition prohibiting Fathima from expressing her views on social media, calling it disproportionate.
    • Right to Practice a Profession: Gag orders must not prevent individuals from pursuing their profession, especially when their work depends on public communication. Example: In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), the Court quashed FIRs against journalist Vinod Dua, stating that his journalistic work was protected under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Interference with Judicial Process is an Exception: The Court has upheld gag orders only when speech could obstruct the judicial process or prejudice a fair trial. Example: In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012), the Court allowed temporary restrictions to prevent media trials from affecting the outcome of legal proceedings.

    Way forward: 

    • Balance Fundamental Rights with Fair Trial: Ensure that any restrictions on speech, including gag orders, are narrow, proportionate, and imposed only when necessary to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings while safeguarding freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Establish Clear Guidelines for Interim Relief: Formulate uniform guidelines to regulate conditions like passport surrender, social media bans, and public statement monitoring, ensuring they are consistent with constitutional protections and do not impose disproportionate burdens on the accused.

  • [22nd February 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Converting court case backlogs into treasure troves

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q) Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

    (UPSC CSE 2017)

    Mentor’s Comment:  UPSC Prelims have focused on ‘appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India’ (in 2017), and  ‘Arbitration and Conciliation’ (2015).

    Every Chief Justice of India and senior member of the higher judiciary faces the persistent challenge of case backlogs. Currently, the Supreme Court has around 82,000 pending cases, High Courts have over 62 lakh, and lower courts nearly five crores. About 50 lakh cases have been pending for over 10 years. India can address its legal backlog by adopting mediation as an effective solution for faster and amicable dispute resolution. 

    Today’s editorial discusses the pending cases in the Supreme Court and explores alternative solutions. This is useful for GS Paper 2 (Polity) in the UPSC Mains.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Supreme Court has around 82,000 pending cases, High Courts have over 62 lakh, and lower courts have nearly five crores.

    What is the status of case backlogs in India?

    • Supreme court: As of recent data, there are approximately 45.3 million pending cases in lower courts across India, with 34.3 million being criminal cases and 10.9 million civil cases. The Supreme Court has a backlog of nearly 83,000 cases, while high courts collectively have about 5.9 million pending cases.
    • High Court: As of recent data, there are approximately 62.39 lakh (6.24 million) pending cases across all High Courts in India, with a significant portion being more than a year old6. This includes both civil and criminal cases.
      • Nearly 62,000 cases have been pending for over 30 years in various High Courts, including some dating back to the early 1950s. This highlights the chronic issue of long-standing pendency affecting the judicial system.

    How can court case backlogs be transformed into valuable resources?

    • Promoting Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Identify and refer suitable cases (e.g., family disputes, commercial disagreements) for mediation to reduce court workload. Example: The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre has successfully resolved thousands of cases through mediation, reducing pendency and fostering amicable settlements.
    • Leveraging Data Analytics for Case Management: Use AI and data analytics to categorize cases by complexity, urgency, and likelihood of settlement for faster resolution. Example: The Supreme Court’s SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) uses AI to assist judges in analyzing and prioritizing cases.
    • Expanding Fast-Track and Special Courts: Establish dedicated courts for high-pendency areas like cheque-bouncing cases (Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) and sexual offenses. Example: Fast-track courts for rape cases under the POCSO Act have expedited justice delivery in many states, reducing backlog in sensitive matters.
    • Implementing E-Courts and Digital Filing: Shift to e-filing and virtual hearings to streamline processes and reduce procedural delays. Example: The E-Courts Project has enabled online case filing and digital record management, reducing paperwork and improving case tracking.
    • Imposing Costs for Frivolous Litigation: Introduce punitive costs for unnecessary appeals and frivolous cases to discourage misuse of the judicial system. Example: The Supreme Court has imposed heavy fines in cases of “Public Interest Litigations” (PILs) found to be motivated by personal agendas.

    Should India consider adopting mediation as a dispute resolution method?

    • Faster and Cost-Effective Resolution: Mediation is quicker and less expensive than prolonged litigation, saving time and financial resources for both parties. Example: In commercial disputes, companies like Tata and Reliance have used mediation to resolve conflicts, avoiding lengthy and costly legal battles.
    • Preserving Relationships: Mediation focuses on mutual agreement, fostering cooperation and maintaining relationships, which is crucial in family and business matters. Example: Matrimonial disputes in family courts are often referred to mediation, leading to amicable settlements and reducing emotional distress.
    • Encouraging Confidentiality and Flexibility: Mediation proceedings are confidential, protecting sensitive information and offering flexible solutions tailored to the parties’ needs. Example: Intellectual Property (IP) disputes in the Bombay High Court have been successfully mediated, protecting trade secrets while resolving conflicts.
    • Global Best Practice Alignment: Many countries, including the United States and Singapore, prioritize mediation to resolve civil and commercial disputes efficiently. Example: India’s Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial cases, aligning with international standards and reducing case influx.
    • Reducing Judicial Backlog: Mediation can significantly reduce the burden on courts by resolving disputes outside the formal judicial system. Example: The Delhi Dispute Resolution Society has successfully mediated thousands of civil and matrimonial disputes, easing pressure on the Delhi High Court.

    What are the steps taken by the Indian government? 

    • Enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023: The Mediation Act provides a statutory framework for mediation, aiming to encourage institutional mediation and enforce mediated settlement agreements. It also establishes a body for registering mediators and promotes community and online mediation.
    • Introduction of Court-Annexed Mediation Centres: Mediation centres have been set up in various High Courts and District Courts to facilitate dispute resolution. Example: The Delhi High Court Mediation Centre (Samadhan) and Bangalore Mediation Centre successfully mediate thousands of cases annually.
    • Incorporating Mediation in Specific Laws: Laws like the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandate pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes, promoting early settlements.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Mediation Infrastructure: Expand court-annexed mediation centres, train mediators, and promote online dispute resolution (ODR) to enhance accessibility and efficiency.
    • Policy and Public Awareness: Implement awareness campaigns to encourage mediation adoption and introduce incentives for parties choosing alternative dispute resolution methods.

  • Supreme Court’s Ruling on Remission

    Why in the News?

    In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that prisoners eligible for remission under state policies must be considered for release even if they do not apply for it.

    This decision comes as part of the suo motu case “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”, initiated in 2021 to address prison overcrowding.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling: Key Takeaways

    • The SC overruled its earlier stance in:
      • Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) – Held that remission was not automatic and required a convict’s application.
      • Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) – Ruled that courts cannot grant remission suo motu.
    • The new ruling recognizes the existence of remission policies in states and holds that:
      • Prison superintendents must initiate remission proceedings for eligible convicts.
      • Failure to consider eligible prisoners for remission violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).

    What is Remission?

    • Remission refers to the reduction of a prison sentence without altering the conviction.
    • It is different from pardon or commutation, which may involve modifying or canceling the sentence entirely.

    Legal Provisions on Remission

    • The power of remission is governed by:
      • Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 432 of CrPC) – Grants state governments the power to remit sentences at any time under specific conditions.
      • Section 475 of BNSS (formerly Section 433A of CrPC) – Prevents remission for life convicts guilty of crimes punishable by death until they serve at least 14 years.
      • Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution – Provide remission powers to the President and Governors at the Union and State levels.
    • Earlier, remission was initiated only when a prisoner applied for it, but the new ruling removes this necessity if states already have structured remission policies.

    Impact of the Ruling on Prison Reforms

    • India’s prison population far exceeds capacity, with a 131.4% occupancy rate (2022 NCRB data).
    • Over 75% of prisoners are undertrials—this ruling may not directly help them, but it could ease congestion by enabling timely release of eligible convicts.
    • The new ruling ensures all eligible prisoners get equal consideration, preventing biases in prison administration.
    • International standards (like UN Nelson Mandela Rules) emphasize prisoner rights and rehabilitation.
    • The judgment upholds fairness and reintegration into society.

    PYQ:

    [2014] Instances of the President’s delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse.

     

  • SC stays Lokpal order on power over judges

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court recently halted a Lokpal order that sought to include High Court judges under its jurisdiction, calling the anti-corruption body’s interpretation “very disturbing.”

    Why did the Supreme Court stay the Lokpal order?

    • Violation of Judicial Independence (Article 50 & Article 121): The Supreme Court held that bringing High Court judges under Lokpal’s jurisdiction undermines judicial independence, which is a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
      • Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, preventing interference in judicial functioning.
      • Article 121 prohibits Parliament from discussing the conduct of judges except in matters of impeachment, reinforcing judicial autonomy.
    • Judges Are Appointed Under the Constitution (Article 124 & Article 217): The Supreme Court rejected Lokpal’s argument that High Courts were created by British laws, emphasizing that all judges are appointed under the Constitution.
      • Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court, while Article 217 governs the appointment of High Court judges, ensuring their independence from executive control.
    • Judicial Oversight Is an Internal Process (Article 124(4) & Article 217(1)(b)): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial misconduct should be handled internally, either through the in-house procedure or the impeachment process.
      • Article 124(4) (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 217(1)(b) (for High Court judges) provide for removal only through Parliamentary impeachment, making external investigations by the Lokpal unconstitutional.

    What is suo motu case? 

    Suo motu (Latin: on its own motion) refers to the Supreme Court or High Courts taking up a case on their own initiative, without a formal petition being filed.

    In which circumstances do courts in India exercise suo motu powers?

    • Constitutional Concerns (Separation of Powers, Judicial Independence): Courts intervene suo motu when an issue threatens constitutional principles like the separation of powers or judicial independence.
      • Example: In re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) – The Supreme Court took up the matter of abrogation of Article 370 to examine whether the Union government’s decision upheld constitutional principles.
    • Fundamental Rights Violations: Courts act suo motu when fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (right to life) are violated.
      • Example: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2020 – The Supreme Court intervened during COVID-19 migrant crisis, directing the government to provide food, shelter, and transport to stranded workers.
    • Public Interest or Institutional Integrity: Courts take suo motu cognizance to protect public interest and prevent harm to democratic institutions.
      • Example: Suo Motu Cognizance of Lakhimpur Kheri Violence (2021) – The Supreme Court intervened to monitor the UP government’s investigation into the killing of protesting farmers, ensuring transparency and accountability.

    Why did the Lokpal order bring High Court judges under its jurisdiction?

    • Interpretation of ‘Public Servants’ Under Lokpal Act: The Lokpal classified High Court judges as public servants under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, making them subject to its jurisdiction.
    • Reliance on Section 14(1)(f) of the Lokpal Act: This section grants Lokpal jurisdiction over any body or authority established by an Act of Parliament.
      • The Lokpal argued that High Courts were established by British Parliamentary Acts (Indian High Courts Act, 1861 & Government of India Act, 1935), making them fall within this clause.
    • Distinction Between High Courts and Supreme Court: The Lokpal reasoned that Article 124 of the Constitution explicitly established the Supreme Court, but Article 214 only recognized High Courts, implying that High Courts were not directly created by the Constitution.
      • Based on this, the Lokpal ruled that Supreme Court judges were outside its jurisdiction, but High Court judges were not.
    • Lack of Explicit Exemption for Judges: The 2013 Lokpal Act does not explicitly exclude High Court judges from its jurisdiction, which the Lokpal interpreted as allowing it to investigate them.
    • Case-Specific Justification: The complaint involved a High Court judge allegedly influencing judicial decisions for personal benefit. The Lokpal argued that since the judge was serving in a High Court of a State reorganized by an Act of Parliament, it had jurisdiction over the matter.

    Way forward: 

    • Judicial Accountability Within Constitutional Framework: Strengthen in-house mechanisms for judicial oversight while ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions like Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b), which mandate impeachment as the sole removal process for judges.
    • Clarify Lokpal’s Jurisdiction Through Legislative Review: Amend the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, to explicitly define its jurisdiction, ensuring it does not encroach upon judicial independence while maintaining transparency in the judiciary.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q 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. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • How can there be a discussion of regionalism v/s nationalism in this country?

    Why in the News?

    Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar said that some groups take advantage of the legal system for their own gain and weaken the country’s unity.

    Why is the discussion of regionalism v/s nationalism considered problematic in the context of India?

    • Threat to National Unity: Excessive emphasis on regionalism can fuel separatist tendencies, as seen in the Khalistan movement in Punjab and insurgencies in the Northeast, undermining India’s unity and sovereignty.
    • Federalism vs. Centralization Conflict: India’s governance relies on cooperative federalism, where both the Union and states share powers. However, debates like Tamil Nadu’s opposition to central exams like NEET highlight tensions between regional autonomy and national policies.
    • Political Exploitation & Vote Bank Politics: Political parties sometimes exploit regional sentiments for electoral gains, leading to polarization. For example, Maharashtra’s “sons of the soil” policy has led to conflicts over job reservations for locals, creating friction between states.
    • Economic Disparities & Development Hurdles: Overemphasis on regional identity can obstruct national projects. Protests against infrastructure projects like hydroelectric dams in Arunachal Pradesh due to local concerns show how regional interests can sometimes slow down national development.
    • Cultural & Linguistic Divides: Attempts to impose a singular national identity, such as making Hindi the sole link language, have faced resistance from states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, highlighting the delicate balance between regional pride and national integration.

    What are the specific divisive forces that undermine national unity?

    • Caste and Religious Polarization: Social divisions based on caste and religion are exploited for political and electoral gains, leading to communal tensions (e.g., Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013 fueled by religious divisions).
    • Regionalism and Sub-Nationalism: Excessive regional pride sometimes leads to demands for secession or special status, disrupting national integration (e.g., Gorkhaland agitation in West Bengal, calls for an independent Nagalim in the Northeast).
    • External Influence and Misinformation: Foreign-backed propaganda and misinformation campaigns on social media create unrest by deepening societal divisions (e.g., Pakistan-backed online campaigns related to Article 370 abrogation in Jammu & Kashmir).

    How are attempts being made to influence the electoral process?

    • Foreign Interference & Propaganda: External forces use misinformation campaigns on social media to shape voter perceptions (e.g., Allegations of foreign-backed digital campaigns influencing Indian elections, as seen in narratives around Article 370).
    • Money Power & Undisclosed Funding: Illicit election financing and opaque political donations influence outcomes (e.g., Concerns over electoral bonds and their impact on political funding transparency).
    • Judicial Route & PIL Misuse: Frequent litigation is filed to delay elections, challenge candidates, or question EVMs without solid evidence (e.g., Multiple PILs questioning EVM credibility, despite SC and EC assurances).
    • Targeted Voter Suppression: Manipulative voter deletion campaigns and fake voter registration attempts (e.g., Complaints of large-scale voter deletions in Karnataka elections, raising concerns over fairness).
    • Big Tech & Algorithmic Manipulation: Social media platforms and AI-driven algorithms are used to spread divisive narratives and influence voter sentiment (e.g., Allegations of biased content promotion on platforms like Facebook and X (Twitter) during elections).

     

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthening Electoral and Judicial Integrity: Implement stricter regulations on election funding, curb misuse of judicial processes, and enhance transparency in political donations to safeguard democratic institutions.
    • Promoting National Cohesion Through Inclusive Policies: Foster cooperative federalism, ensure balanced regional development, and encourage cultural inclusivity to prevent divisive narratives and reinforce national unity.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Do you agree that regionalism in India appears to be a consequence of rising cultural assertiveness? Argue. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • Doctrine of Merger

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court clarified the “doctrine of merger,” stating that only one final decree or order can govern the same matter. When a higher court rules on a case, its decision overrides the lower court’s decree, becoming the binding and operative order.

    What is ‘Doctrine of Merger’?

    • The Doctrine of Merger is a legal principle that governs the relationship between decisions or decrees passed by different judicial forums in the hierarchy.
    • It holds that once a superior court disposes of a case, the decision or decree of the lower court merges with that of the superior court.
    • This doctrine ensures that there is only one operative and binding decree governing a subject matter at a given point in time.
    • The doctrine applies when the order or decree of a lower court is subjected to an appeal, revision, or review before a higher court.
    • It ensures that there is no ambiguity regarding which order is binding and enforceable.
    • Key Features of the Doctrine of Merger
      • Single Operative Decree: The doctrine ensures that once a higher court has passed its judgment, there cannot be multiple operative decrees for the same subject matter.
      • Scope: Applicable when a lower court’s order is challenged before a superior court. The higher court’s decision, whether confirming, modifying, or overturning the lower court’s decree, becomes the final and binding authority.
      • Effect of Merger: The lower court’s decree is no longer independently enforceable; it is subsumed within the superior court’s order.

    Legal Basis and Precedents:

    • Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000): The superior court’s decree, whether it confirms, modifies, or sets aside the lower court’s decree, replaces the lower court’s decision.
    • Logic of the Doctrine: “There cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point of time.”
    • Jurisdictional Hierarchy: This principle is applied in cases of appeals and revisions where the decision of the higher forum takes precedence over that of the lower forum.

    PYQ:

    [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 judgement as the Supreme Court does.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither I nor 2

  • Right to Access to Justice Not Absolute: Supreme Court (SC)

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court fined Rs. 1 Lakh on a dishonest person who kept filing unnecessary and baseless cases. The Court said that while everyone has the right to go to court, it should be used responsibly.

    What is meant by ‘Right to Access to Justice’?

    • The Right to Access to Justice refers to the fundamental principle that individuals should have the ability to seek and obtain remedies through formal or informal institutions of justice for grievances.
    • This right is rooted in the rule of law and ensures that all citizens, regardless of their background, can effectively resolve their legal issues and hold decision-makers accountable.
    • Without access to justice, individuals may be unable to exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or seek redress for wrongs they have suffered.

    What are the other provisions related to the Right to Access to Justice?

    • Article 14 (Equality before the law): This article guarantees that everyone is treated equally under the law, regardless of their background or status.
      • A notable example is the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case (1978), where the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 also includes the right to fair procedure.
    • Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty): This article protects the fundamental right to life, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a fair and just legal process.
      • In the State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan (1983) case, the Supreme Court ruled that access to justice is a key aspect of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing the importance of protecting personal liberty.
    • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This Act ensures free legal aid for the poor and disadvantaged, promoting equality in accessing justice.
      • A significant example is the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case, where the Supreme Court directed the implementation of effective legal aid programs for the marginalized, making access to justice easier for underprivileged groups.
    • Article 39A (Free legal aid): This article mandates the state to provide free legal assistance to ensure that no one is denied justice due to financial incapacity.
      • An example is the Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) case, where the Supreme Court directed the government to ensure legal aid is available for victims of acid attacks, recognizing that financial constraints should not prevent victims from seeking justice.
    • Judicial Precedents (Supreme Court Decisions): The Supreme Court has consistently expanded the concept of access to justice. In Delhi Domestic Workers Forum v. Union of India (2016), the Court recognized the need for legal protection for domestic workers, expanding access to justice for marginalized groups.
    • National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): NALSA has played a crucial role in ensuring legal aid for marginalized communities.
      • For instance, in the NALSA v. Union of India (2014) case, the Court ordered the government to set up legal aid camps and ensure access to justice for tribals and marginalized groups, further solidifying NALSA’s role in promoting equality and fairness in the legal system.

    What are the essential elements for the Right to Access to Justice?

    • Availability of Legal Remedies: Individuals must have access to effective legal remedies that can address their grievances.
    • Affordability: Legal services should be financially accessible, with provisions for free legal aid where necessary.
    • Awareness and Information: Citizens should be informed about their rights and the legal processes available to them.
    • Fair Procedures: The judicial process must be transparent and fair, providing all parties an equal opportunity to present their case.
    • Physical and Legal Access: This includes not only the ability to enter courts but also having the necessary support systems in place, such as legal representation and knowledge of the law.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthening Legal Aid and Awareness Programs: Expand the reach of legal aid services and increase awareness campaigns to ensure marginalized groups are informed about their rights and legal remedies.
    • Reforming Judicial Infrastructure: Enhance the accessibility and efficiency of judicial systems by addressing delays, improving court infrastructure, and ensuring the availability of affordable legal representation for all citizens.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q 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. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • What is Section 479 of the BNSS, 2023?

    Why in the News?

    The Central Government has directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to implement Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This provision seeks to relieve undertrial prisoners (UTPs) by addressing prolonged detention and mitigating prison overcrowding.

    What is Section 479 of the BNSS?

    • Section 479 governs the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner (UTP) can be detained during investigation, inquiry, or trial.
    • It is based on Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
    • It aims to address the prolonged detention of UTPs, ensure their timely release on bail or bond, and maintain fairness and accountability in the judicial process.
    • This section applies to cases where the punishment does not include death or life imprisonment, and introduces clear mechanisms for review and action, thereby mitigating issues like prison overcrowding.

    Key Provisions under Section 479 of BNSS:

    • Eligibility for Bail: Undertrials (UTPs) who have served half of their maximum possible sentence may be released on bail; the court must provide written reasons if they decide to extend detention after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
    • First-Time Offenders: UTPs with no prior convictions who have served one-third of their maximum sentence are eligible for release on bond, aligning with the principle of reformative justice.
    • Superintendent’s Responsibility: Jail superintendents must submit a written application to the court for the release of UTPs upon completion of the applicable detention period (one-third or one-half, depending on eligibility).
    • Exclusions: The provision does not apply to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, and any delay caused by the accused is excluded from the detention period calculation.
    • Limitations for Multiple Offences: Accused individuals facing multiple offences or multiple charges are not covered, ensuring the provision is not misused in complex or repeated criminal cases.
    • Absolute Ceiling on Detention: Detention cannot exceed the maximum imprisonment term prescribed for the offence, preventing indefinite incarceration.
    • Judicial Oversight: Courts must ensure extended detention serves public safety and justice, requiring input from the Public Prosecutor for any continued confinement.
    • Mandatory Review Mechanism: A statutory review process is in place to prevent prolonged undertrial detention and address potential oversights or delays.
    • Safeguard against Misuse: Time delays caused by the accused do not count towards the detention period, ensuring fair application of the law.
    • Focus on Reform and Decongestion: By expediting bail and bond processes for eligible UTPs, the law aims to reduce overcrowding in prisons and uphold reformative objectives.

    PYQ:

    [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 accused is locked up in 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?​

    (a) 1 only ​

    (b) 2 only​

    (c) Both 1 and 2 ​

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2​

  • [7th January 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Collegium and changes — it may still be early days

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q) Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC CSE 2017) 

    Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020) 

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains has always focused on  ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ (2017) and Comparison between judicial systems in India and the UK (2020)

    Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is starting his final working week. During his time leading the Supreme Court Collegium, the team worked hard to fill judicial vacancies but overlooked some important issues.In two years, the Collegium supported free speech online, dignity for all regardless of sexual orientation, and fairness in judicial appointments. 

    Today’s editorial talks about the reform in the Collegium system of India and this content will help you in the Mains answer (GS II) paper to steps taken in reform related to the Judicial system in India.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, two significant developments regarding the Supreme Court of India’s Collegium have emerged – firstly, the interviews for Judicial Candidates and secondly the exclusion of Relatives in Judiciary.

    • The Collegium will now conduct interviews for candidates recommended for High Court elevation, shifting from a reliance on biodata to personal assessments.
    • The Collegium is considering excluding candidates with close relatives who are or have been judges, aiming to reduce nepotism and promote diversity in judicial appointments.

    How is the Collegium system adapting to recent controversies and challenges?

    • Candidate Interviews: The Collegium has decided to conduct interviews for candidates recommended for elevation to High Courts. This step aims to enhance the selection process by allowing decision-makers to engage directly with nominees, thereby improving the assessment of their qualifications.
    • Exclusion of Relatives: The Collegium plans to exclude candidates whose close relatives have served or are currently serving as judges in the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
      • This initiative seeks to promote diversity within the judiciary and reduce concerns about nepotism, although it recognizes that some deserving candidates may be overlooked.
    • Need for Formal Rules: There is a pressing need for a clear set of binding rules governing the Collegium’s functioning. Currently, the system operates without formal regulations, leading to concerns about accountability and transparency. Establishing such rules is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
    What is the Collegium system?

    The Three Judges Cases form the cornerstone of the collegium system in India, which governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary. These cases interpreted the provisions of Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution, dealing with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.

    • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive (President) has primacy in judicial appointments, and the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) opinion is not binding, granting greater power to the executive.
    • Second Judges Case (1993): The court overruled the First Judges Case, establishing the collegium system, where judicial appointments and transfers are decided by the judiciary, led by the CJI and senior judges, ensuring judicial independence.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): The collegium was expanded to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments and CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments, refining the process for transparency and collective decision-making.

    What is the criticism of the Collegium system? 

    • NJAC Act (2014): Parliament attempted to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, the NJAC was struck down in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) as unconstitutional, as it was deemed to compromise the independence of the judiciary.
    • Ongoing Debates: Critics argue that the collegium system lacks transparency, accountability, and an objective process for appointments. Reforms to balance independence with accountability remain a contentious issue.

    What are the potential consequences of leadership changes within the Supreme Court for the Collegium’s future?

    • Impact on Reform Initiatives: New Chief Justices may prioritize different aspects of judicial appointments, influencing how reforms are implemented. A Chief Justice committed to reform could advocate for greater transparency and adherence to established procedures, while a more conservative leader might resist changes.
    • Shifts in Decision-Making Dynamics: The leadership style of incoming Chief Justices can alter the dynamics within the Collegium, affecting how candidates are evaluated and selected. This could lead to variations in collegial discussions and recommendations.
    • Implementation of Existing Rules: The ability to enforce existing legal frameworks related to judicial appointments will depend on the leadership’s willingness to uphold rulings from previous Judges’ cases. Respecting these rulings is crucial for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that the law is followed.

    Way forward: 

    • Formalize Collegium Procedures: Draft and implement clear binding rules to govern the Collegium’s functioning which ensures transparency, accountability, and merit-based judicial appointments while addressing concerns of nepotism and bias.
    • Strengthen Institutional Practices: Institutionalize reforms like candidate interviews, broaden diversity, and adopt technology-driven decision-making to enhance efficiency, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary.

    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-forward-movement-on-four-names-reiterated-by-collegium-headed-by-justice-chandrachud/article68825218.ece

  • The nature of dissent in the Indian judiciary

    Why in the News?

    In the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting opinions often reflect the political views of judges, as they are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. In contrast, dissenting opinions in the Indian judiciary cover a wider range, including political, social, and purely intellectual disagreements

    What is the significance of dissenting opinions?

    • Preservation of Judicial Independence: Dissenting opinions serve as a safeguard for judicial independence, allowing judges to express their disagreements with majority decisions without fear of repercussions. This fosters a culture of open debate within the judiciary, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
    • Shaping Legal Precedents: Dissent can influence future legal interpretations and decisions. Over time, dissenting views may gain traction and become part of the evolving legal landscape, as seen in cases like ADM Jabalpur and P.V. Narasimha Rao, where dissents later informed subsequent rulings.
    • Encouraging Public Discourse: Dissenting opinions can stimulate public discussion and debate about important legal and constitutional issues. They often highlight alternative perspectives that may resonate with societal values or concerns, thereby enriching democratic dialogue.

    How does dissent in the Indian judiciary compare to that in the U.S.?

    • Political Influences: In the U.S., dissent often reflects the political affiliations of justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. For example, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissents align with conservative viewpoints on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
      • In contrast, Indian judges are selected through a collegium system, which aims to reduce political influence on judicial decisions, resulting in dissents that may not necessarily align with current political sentiments.
    • Nature of Dissents: U.S. Supreme Court dissents frequently stem from ideological divides among justices, whereas Indian judicial dissents encompass a broader spectrum, including political, social, and intellectual disagreements.
      • For instance, Justices Khehar and Nazeer in Shayara Bano focused on the social implications of personal law rather than political affiliations.
    • Impact on Law: While both systems recognise the importance of dissent in shaping jurisprudence, Indian dissents have historically led to significant legal changes post-ruling, as seen in cases like Sita Soren where earlier dissents influenced the court’s later position on parliamentary immunity.

    What challenges and criticisms surround judicial dissent in India?

    • Risk of Retaliation: Judges who dissent against majority opinions may face professional backlash or career repercussions. Notable cases include Justice H.R. Khanna, who was superseded as Chief Justice after his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, highlighting potential risks for dissenters within the judiciary.
    • Infrequent Dissent: Despite its importance, dissent is relatively rare in the Indian Supreme Court compared to its potential significance. The Chief Justice often avoids dissenting opinions in constitutional bench cases, which raises concerns about conformity over independent judicial reasoning.
    • Public Perception: Judicial dissent can sometimes be viewed negatively by the public or political entities as undermining judicial authority or coherence. This perception can discourage judges from expressing their dissent openly.

    What are the accountable-related issues? 

    • High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
    • Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
    • Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
    • Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.

     

    What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?

    • Initiation: A removal motion, signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, is submitted and approved by the Speaker or Chairman to initiate the process.
    • Investigation: A three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist) is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
    • Parliamentary Decision: If the committee confirms the charges, the motion is debated in Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal by the President.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutional Support for Dissent: Establish mechanisms to safeguard dissenting judges from career repercussions, such as transparent evaluation criteria and protections for judicial independence, ensuring open debate within the judiciary.
    • Promote Judicial Dialogue: Encourage a culture of constructive dissent by incorporating dissenting opinions into judicial training and fostering recognition of their long-term contributions to legal evolution.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (UPSC IAS/2017)