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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • Why Karnataka HC allowed investigation against CM Siddaramaiah in alleged MUDA scam case

    Why in the News?

    On Monday, September 24, the Karnataka High Court permitted an investigation into Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

    What was the MUDA scam case?

    • The Allegations: In July 2023, anti-corruption activists approached Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot, alleging that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, received 14 housing sites from the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). 
      • This was allegedly in exchange for a 3.16-acre plot of land that MUDA illegally acquired in 2021, during the tenure of the BJP-led government. The scam allegedly caused a loss of ₹55.80 crore to the state.
    • Governor’s Action: In response, the Governor issued a show-cause notice to Siddaramaiah and later sanctioned an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

    What were the grounds for Siddaramaiah’s challenge? 

    • Council of Ministers’ Advice: The Chief Minister argued that the Governor was bound by the Council of Ministers’ August 1, 2023 resolution, advising withdrawal of the show-cause notice.
    • Governor’s Discretion: Siddaramaiah contended that the Governor’s sanction was unjustified, biased, and exceeded his discretionary powers, which could only be invoked if the Council’s decision was irrational.

    What did the court decide?   

    • The Karnataka High Court upheld the Governor’s sanction for the investigation, stating that the circumstances justified the Governor’s actions under “exceptional circumstances.”
    • The court observed that the Governor’s decision was not made in haste but after careful consideration of the allegations and relevant facts.
    • The court clarified that private individuals (complainants) can seek approval to investigate public officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Governor’s approval can be granted even in such cases.
    • The court lifted the interim embargo on the investigation against Siddaramaiah, allowing the inquiry to continue into the alleged MUDA scam.

    Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court upheld Governor Gehlot’s sanction for an investigation into the alleged MUDA scam, rejecting Siddaramaiah’s challenge. The court ruled that exceptional circumstances justified the Governor’s actions, allowing the inquiry to proceed.

  • The perception of Justice

    Why in the News?

    The perception of justice is as vital as justice itself, with unelected constitutional institutions expected to uphold transparency and exercise restraint in engaging with elected authorities.

    Relationship between Public Perception and the Actual Functioning of the Justice System:

    • Role of Perception in Justice: Perception of justice is critical because it shapes public trust in institutions. Even if the justice system functions properly, if it is perceived as biased or ineffective, it erodes confidence. The system must not only deliver justice but also be seen as just.
    • Moral Authority: When unelected constitutional bodies, like the judiciary, demonstrate transparency and accountability, they build moral authority.
    • Perception vs Reality: Public perception can sometimes be more influential than the actual functioning of the system. Institutions like the judiciary must work to balance delivering justice and managing public perception to maintain credibility.

    How Do Systemic Biases Affect Perceptions of Justice Among Marginalized Communities:

    • Historical and Structural Biases: These perceptions arise when the system disproportionately impacts certain communities, whether through discriminatory practices or unequal access to legal representation.
    • Erosion of Trust: When systemic biases are evident, marginalized groups may become cynical or disengaged from legal processes, believing that the system is not designed to serve their interests. This creates a widening gap between these communities and the justice system.
    • Impact on Public Discourse: Systemic biases fuel narratives that the justice system is rigged or unfair. In the long term, this can lead to public apathy, where marginalized groups may stop engaging with the system, assuming that it will not provide them justice.

    Broader Reflections on Democracy and Institutions:

    • Information and Discourse: The explosion of media and social media has blurred the lines between personality-driven and issue-based politics. This shift has led to heightened cynicism, where the focus on individuals overshadows serious discourse on public issues.
    • Restoring Institutional Integrity: For democracies to thrive, institutions must maintain boundaries defined by constitutional mandates. When constitutional organs exhibit higher standards of probity and transparency, they inspire trust, which is vital for democracy.
    • Responsibility of Constitutional Institutions: Independent constitutional bodies, like the judiciary, are expected to rise above partisan politics and protect democratic values.
      • The example of T.N. Seshan, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, exemplifies how individuals can enhance institutional integrity by adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining public confidence.

    Conclusion:

    The functioning of the justice system, while critical, is deeply influenced by public perception, especially among marginalized communities. Systemic biases create barriers to justice for these communities, reinforcing negative perceptions. Constitutional organs must hold themselves to higher standards, as public trust in these institutions is vital for the health of democracy.

  • New Flag and Insignia of the Supreme Court of India

    Why in the News?

    President Droupadi Murmu unveiled the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court of India during the National Conference of District Judiciary in New Delhi.

    About New Flag and Insignia of the Supreme Court of India:

    Details
    Designed by National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Delhi
    Flag Design Blue flag featuring three symbols:

    1. Ashoka Chakra (Symbol of India’s legal and cultural heritage)
    2. Supreme Court Building (Represents the institution of justice in India)
    3. Constitution of India (Highlights the role of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution)
    Insignia 
    • Includes the Sanskrit phrase “Yato Dharmastato Jayah“ inscribed in Devanagari script.
    • Translates to “Where there is Dharma, there is victory“, symbolizing the Supreme Court’s dedication to justice and righteousness.
    • Occurs 13 times in the epic the Mahabharata.
    Flag Formats Available in cross table flat, single table flag, pole flag, and wooden frame versions

     

    PYQ:

    [2023] Consider the following statements in respect of the National Flag of India according to the Flag Code of India, 2002:

    Statement-I: One of the standard sizes of the National Flag of India is 600 mm * 400 mm.
    Statement-II: The ratio of the length to the height (width) of the Flag shall be 3:2.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I

    b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I

    c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect

    d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

  • What is a Review Petition?

    Why in the News?

    Some medical students have filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s dismissal of their plea to cancel NEET UG 2024 over alleged malpractices.

    What is a Review Petition?

    Details
    Constitutional Provision Article 137 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to review any of its judgments or orders.
    Scope of Review
    • Corrects “patent errors” and not minor mistakes.
    • It is not an appeal; it does not involve re-evaluating the entire case but correcting grave errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
    Filing Review Petition
    • Can be filed by any person aggrieved by a ruling, not necessarily a party to the case.
    • Must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order.
    • Delay can be condoned if justified with strong reasons.
    Grounds for Review
    • Discovery of new and important evidence not available earlier despite due diligence.
    • Mistake or errors apparent on the face of the record.
    Procedure in the Court
    • Review petitions are usually heard through circulation without oral arguments.
    • In exceptional cases, oral hearings may be allowed, especially in death penalty cases. 
    • Heard by the same bench of judges who delivered the original judgment or order.
    Option After Review Fails If a review petition is dismissed, a curative petition can be filed as per the Roopa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) ruling, on very narrow grounds similar to a review petition.

     

    PYQ:

    [2017] In India, Judicial Review implies:

    (a) the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.

    (b) the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures.

    (c) the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President.

    (d) the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases.

  • Report reveals minimal use of Plea Bargaining in Courts

    Why in the News?

    According to a report by the Ministry of Law and Justice, only 0.11% of cases were settled through “plea bargaining” in 2022.

    Key Findings of the Report:

    • In 2022, only 19,135 out of 1,70,52,367 cases (about 0.11%) in Indian courts were disposed of through plea bargaining, indicating its minimal use.
    • Despite legal restrictions, 119 cases of crimes against women and only 4 cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) were resolved through plea bargaining in 2022, showing a deviation from the intended exclusions.

    What is Plea Bargaining?

    Details
    Definition
    • Plea bargaining allows an accused person to negotiate with the prosecution for a lesser punishment by pleading guilty to a less serious offence. 
    • This involves pre-trial negotiations on the charge or the sentence.
    Provision in India • Introduced in 2006 as part of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 under Chapter XXI-A (Sections 265A to 265L).
    • Limited to offences that do not attract the death sentence, life sentence, or a term above seven years.• Not applicable to offences affecting socio-economic conditions or committed against women or children under 14. (applies only to offences punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment)
    Procedure in India • Only the accused can initiate plea bargaining.
    • The accused must apply to the court to start the process. If permitted, a meeting involving the prosecutor, investigating officer, and victim (if any) is held for a satisfactory case disposition.
    • Includes possible reduced sentences and compensation payments to the victim by the accused.
    Benefits Offered • Speeds up trials, reduces litigation costs and ends uncertainty over case outcomes.
    • Helps reduce prison overcrowding and the number of prolonged imprisonments of undertrials.
    • Offers a chance for offenders to make a fresh start.
    • Could improve conviction rates, as seen in the USA.
    • Recommended by the Malimath Committee (2000) for its potential to dramatically impact conviction rates and ensure a speedy trial.

     

    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​

  • The top court as custodian of liberties    

    Why in the News?

    • Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was arrested in early 2023 by the CBI and ED in the Delhi liquor policy case. After nearly a year and a half in prison, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail, underscoring that bail should not be used as a form of punishment.

    Previous judgments on the ‘Right to Speedy Trial’:

    1. The Supreme Court referenced its earlier judgments, including Kashmira Singh (1977), P. Chidambaram (2020), and Satender Kumar Antil (2022), which establish that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution.
    2. The Court’s decision in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2020) was cited, reinforcing that liberty is a core component of constitutionalism.
    3. In recent scenario, the SC relied on its earlier order dated October 30, 2023, in Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau of Investigation, which highlighted concerns about the large volume of evidence (56,000 pages of documents and 456 witnesses) potentially causing significant delays in trial proceedings.

    What are the present limitations?

    • Prolonged Incarceration: The ruling pointed out that the legal system often leads to excessive delays, which can result in individuals being punished without trial.
    • Dependence on Prosecutorial Statements: A concern was raised about the reliance on the prosecution’s assurances regarding the timeline for trial completion.  

    ‘Guarantee of Civil Liberties’:

    • Constitutional Foundation: The Supreme Court emphasized that individual liberties should not be contingent on the discretion of the prosecution.
      • In judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded the understanding of due process, emphasising that any deprivation of liberty must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedures.
    • Judicial Responsibility: The judgment aims to prevent the misuse of stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals.
      • In Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023), the Supreme Court emphasized judicial oversight in PMLA enforcement while ensuring trials follow underlying offenses.
    • Public’s trust on Judiciary: Presently, the Apex Court pointed out the flawed tendency of some judges to deny bail unnecessarily, ignoring the principle of timely trials. This may lead to loss of public trust in the judiciary.
    • Call for Systemic Change: The ruling urges a reevaluation of the political and legal systems to prioritize justice and individual rights over personal vendettas.
      • State of Maharashtra v. Rani Kusum (2005) underscores the necessity for reforms to address delays in the judicial process.
    • Bail is the Rule, Not the Exception: The Supreme Court’s decision in granting bail to Manish Sisodia reinforces the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception.

    Way forward: 

    • Adherence to procedural deadlines: In this situation, courts should enforce stricter adherence to procedural deadlines and prioritize cases involving prolonged incarceration to safeguard the right to a speedy trial.
    • Independent oversight committees: Need to establish independent oversight committees to regularly review cases of prolonged incarceration without trial, ensuring accountability and reducing reliance on prosecutorial assurances alone.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)

  • The case for a Legal Advisory Council  

    Why in the news?

    Legal insights from well-structured think tanks can be crucial in clarifying the true intent of specific legislation for the government.

    Scope to Review the Process of Legal Consultancy

    • Need for Structured Legal Inputs: The handling of legal issues by the National Democratic Alliance has been inadequate. There is a need for continuous, informed, and empirically valid legal inputs from structured think tanks to clarify legislative intents.
    • Proposal for a Legal Advisory Council (LAC): Establishing a LAC akin to the Economic Advisory Council could provide the Prime Minister with timely legal analysis and insights, helping to preempt legal challenges and enhance the legislative process.

    Need of Think Tank: 

    • Expert Legal and Policy Analysis: Well-structured think tanks provide informed and empirical legal analysis that can enhance the legislative process.
    • Facilitation of Evidence-Based Decision Making: Think tanks can contribute to evidence-based decision-making by conducting research and providing data-driven insights on complex legal and social issues.

    Recent Legal Issues and the Puttaswamy Case Judgment

    • Electoral Bonds Scheme: The Supreme Court recently ruled the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional for violating voters’ right to information. This decision highlights the importance of conducting proportionality tests before implementing laws to balance privacy rights with transparency.
    • Aadhaar Act Intervention: A similar legal examination prior to the implementation of the Aadhaar Act could have prevented the Supreme Court’s intervention in the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, which addressed privacy concerns.
    • Transporter Strike: Concerns over the hit-and-run provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, led to nationwide protests by transporters, indicating the need for thorough legal viability assessments before introducing potentially problematic legislation.

    Anticipating Challenges

    • Proactive Legal Analysis: The proposed LAC would conduct legal analyses of issues referred by the government and perform suo motu research on contemporary legal matters, allowing for proactive identification of potential legal challenges.
    • Engagement with National Law Universities: Leveraging the expertise of national law universities can enhance the legal consultancy process, ensuring that laws are constitutionally viable and socially acceptable. Regular research inputs from these institutions can aid in formulating better legislation and addressing legal challenges before they escalate.

    Way forward: 

    • The LAC should comprise legal experts, eminent jurists, academicians, and researchers with specializations in various fields frequently legislated upon by the government, such as criminal law, trade law, international law, business laws, and taxation laws.
    • Establish formal mechanisms for collaboration, such as the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws at the National Law University Delhi set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to facilitate the exchange of ideas and research between the government and academia.

  • High Court Judges’ Appointment under process: Centre

    Why in the News?

    The Union government has said that 219 proposals for the appointment of High Court judges by the Collegium are in various stages of processing.

    What is Collegium System?

    • The collegium system is the method used for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
    •  It is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • The term ‘Collegium’ does not find mention in the Constitution.
    • Constitutional Provisions:
      • Article 124: The President appoints the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court after consultations with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.
      • Article 217: The President appoints High Court judges after consultations with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned

    Composition:

    1. Supreme Court Collegium:
      • A five-member body.
      • Headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
      • Includes the four other senior most judges of the Supreme Court at that time.
    2. High Court Collegium:
      • Led by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
      • Includes the two senior most judges of that High Court.
      • Recommendations for appointments by a High Court collegium are sent to the government only after approval by the CJI and the Supreme Court collegium.

    Evolution: Three Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
      • The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not binding on the executive in the matter of appointments and transfers of judges. The court ruled that the executive has primacy in judicial appointments.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
      • The Supreme Court, by a majority of 7:2, overruled the First Judges Case and held that the CJI’s opinion regarding judicial appointments and transfers should be given primacy.
      • The court established that the CJI should consult with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before making recommendations for appointments and transfers, thereby creating a collegium system.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium:

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges:

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts:

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Qualifications for Appointment as a Supreme Court Judge:

    According to Article 124(3) of the Constitution, a person can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court if he or she:

    • Is a citizen of India.
    • Has served as a judge of a High Court for at least five years or in two such courts in succession.
    • Alternatively, has been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years or in two or more such courts in succession.
    • Is a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

    Qualifications for Appointment as a High Court Judge:

    • The person must have held a judicial office for at least 10 years in India, or
    • Must have been a practising advocate in a High Court for at least 10 years.
    • The person must be enrolled under the Bar Council of India.

    PYQ:

    [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 staffs 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?

    (a) 1 and 3 only

    (b) 3 and 4 only

    (c) 4 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • Amidst politicians’ new reverence for the Constitution, one thing to remember 

    Why in the news? 

    Voters have cleverly embraced the idea of constitutional principles to protect their freedoms. It’s now everyone’s responsibility, including elected officials, citizens, and the judiciary, to ensure that there’s no overreach.

    Constitutional Provisions:

    • Article 99: Mandates that every member of Parliament must take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution.
    • Third Schedule: Specifies the form of oath or affirmation that members of Parliament, judges of the Supreme Court, and High Courts must take.
    • Part III (Fundamental Rights): Guarantees civil liberties, such as the rights to equality, freedom of speech, and right to life.
    • Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy): Provides guidelines for governance, directing the state in certain policy matters for the welfare of citizens.

    Basic Structure and Foundational Principles:

    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Established the doctrine that certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament if they violate its “Basic Structure”, ensuring that fundamental principles like democracy, secularism, judicial review, and federalism cannot be altered.
    • Foundational Principles: Include the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence, and protection of fundamental rights.

    Basic Structure and foundational principles should never be allowed to be eclipsed                                     

    • Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Basic Structure doctrine protects fundamental rights and core principles like democracy, secularism, judicial independence, and federalism in India.
    • Preservation of Constitutional Balance: Eclipsing the Basic Structure and foundational principles could upset the delicate balance of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. These principles ensure that no single branch of government becomes disproportionately powerful, thereby maintaining the checks and balances essential for democratic governance.
    • Upholding the Rule of Law: The Basic Structure doctrine reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. By preventing its core principles from being undermined or diluted through constitutional amendments or legislative actions, it ensures that all state actions, including laws passed by Parliament, are consistent with constitutional norms and the rule of law.

    Significance of “Judicial Overreach”:

    • Protection of Rights: Judicial overreach often arises when courts intervene to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, especially when legislative or executive actions are perceived to violate these rights.
    • Checks and Balances: It serves as a crucial check on the powers of the legislature and executive, ensuring that their actions conform to constitutional principles and do not exceed their authority.
    • Defending the Constitution: Courts may intervene to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, ensuring that laws and actions comply with its provisions, including the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

    Criticisms of judicial overreach:

    • Interference with the Separation of Powers: Critics argue that judicial overreach interferes with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
    • Lack of Accountability: Another criticism of judicial overreach is that the judiciary is not accountable to the people in the same way that elected representatives are. Because Judges are appointed, not elected 
    • Dilution of Democracy: Some critics argue that judicial overreach can undermine the democratic process by taking important decisions out of the hands of elected officials and placing them in the hands of judges.  

    Mains PYQ: 

    Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)

  • Blaming court vacation for pendency misses the real problem

    Why in the news?

    A casual remark from a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council has reignited the debate on judges’ working hours and vacations.

    Reports on Case Pendencies:

    According to the “India Justice Report”, as of June 2020, cases remain pending for an average of three years in subordinate courts and five years in high courts, highlighting the extensive backlog.

    Issues of unfilled vacancies and lack of infrastructure/ Present challenges:

    • Overburdened Judiciary: Judges and courts are overburdened with excessive government litigation, new legislation adding to the workload, and the rising tide of litigation across various domains.
    • Infrastructure Deficits: Shortages in courtrooms and support staff, with national averages showing a 26% deficit in support staff. Insufficient infrastructure hampers the smooth processing of cases.
    • Quality Deficits: Uneven proficiency in language and legal knowledge among lawyers and judges contribute to procedural delays and suboptimal outcomes. Lengthy pleadings, paper books, and judgments further exacerbate the problem.
    • Vacancy Crisis: Many courts, including high courts and lower courts, face a significant shortage of judges, with vacancies averaging around 30% in high courts and 22% in subordinate courts. Some states, like Bihar and Meghalaya, have vacancies exceeding 30% for over three years.
      • Lack of administrative support and outdated procedures impede the efficient management of cases and court operations.

    What can be done?

    • Address Vacancies: Expedite the appointment process for vacant judicial positions and strive to achieve full complement in courts to alleviate workload pressures.
      • Set higher standards for judicial appointments and legal practice to ensure competence and proficiency among legal professionals.
      • Establish Permanent Administrative Secretariats (PAS) led by qualified court managers to assist judges in case management and administrative tasks.
    • Invest in Infrastructure: Build more courtrooms, hire additional support staff, and invest in technology to streamline court processes and enhance efficiency.
      • Allocate adequate resources to the judiciary to improve infrastructure, enhance administrative capabilities, and ramp up efficiency in justice delivery.
    • Prioritize Judicial Reform: Undertake comprehensive judicial reforms to address systemic issues, streamline processes, and enhance access to justice for all citizens.
      • Implement specialized courts, pre-trial mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to expedite case resolution and reduce backlog.

    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)