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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • Living wills implementation lags in India

    Why in the news? 

    In early March this year, 30 people in Thrissur in Kerala executed living wills.

    Context:

    • The Supreme Court’s 2018 order on Passive Euthanasia, wherein it recognized the ‘Right to die with dignity’ as a fundamental right and an aspect of Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
    • However, the people wanting to get a “living will” registered were facing problems due to cumbersome guidelines, prompting a reconsideration by the apex court.
    • A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in three concurring opinions, upheld that the fundamental right to life and dignity includes the ‘Right to Refuse Treatment and Die with dignity’.

    What is a Living Will? 

    A Living Will is a healthcare directive, in which people can state their wishes for their end-of-life care, in case they are not in a position to make that decision.

    The Court’s procedure:

    • Pre-2023: Initially, the process of creating living wills was deemed overly complex by the Court, with elaborate bureaucratic procedures in place to prevent abuse by unscrupulous individuals seeking to exploit the patient’s assets.
    • Post-2023: Recognizing the impracticality of requiring judicial magistrate countersignatures on living wills, the Court streamlined the process in January 2023. Now, living will require signatures in the presence of witnesses, attestation by a notary or gazetted officer, and submission to a designated government officer acting as a custodian.

    Challenges in Implementation :

    • Decision-Making Process: Even if a living will is created, its implementation is not automatic. Decisions on withholding or withdrawing treatment require certification by primary and secondary medical boards, posing logistical challenges, especially in hospitals without designated boards.
    • Ambiguities and Discomfort: Ambiguities in guidelines, discomfort with end-of-life care topics, and unclear legal definitions contribute to the hesitancy among officials to implement the Court’s directives without clear instructions from higher authorities.
    • Legal Ambiguity: Indian law lacks a clear definition of ‘next of kin’, leading to potential disputes among family members about medical decisions for terminally ill patients.
    • Barriers to End-of-Life Decisions: A survey of intensive care doctors reveals a general belief that end-of-life decisions are fraught with legal implications, serving as a significant barrier to making such decisions in the ICU.
    • Regional Disparities in India:
    • Haryana: While some states like Haryana have issued directions to follow the judgment, they have not provided essential guidance or protocols for implementation.
    • Odisha: In contrast, Odisha has taken a more thorough approach by forming a committee of experts to develop detailed draft orders for implementing the judgment, setting a potential example for other states.

    Conclusion: The central government could help bridge the gap in expertise by developing and publishing model orders and protocols to provide states with confidence and guidance in effectively implementing the judgment.

    Mains question for practice 

    Q Discuss the challenges surrounding the implementation of living wills in India, as established by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in 2018.

     

     

     

  • Advisory boards under preventive detention laws are not rubber stamps for the government: Supreme Court

    Why in the news? 

    Recently  SCt said that advisory boards should act like a safety net, protecting people’s freedom from the government’s arbitrary use of power. 

    • They need to make sure there’s a balance between the government’s actions and people’s right to be free.

    About Advisory Board:

    • Article 22 of the Constitution makes it mandatory for preventive detention laws to form advisory boards consisting of persons qualified to be High Court judges.
    • Objective: It must consider whether the detention is necessary not just in the eyes of the detaining authority but also in the eyes of the law.
    • Case Background: The judgment came in an appeal filed by a man ordered by the Telangana police to be detained as a ‘goonda’ under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986.
    • The claim by Telangana police: The man was a threat to “public order”. He was a cause of panic and fear among women. The appellant was accused of making a habit of snatching the ‘mangalsutras’ of his victims in broad daylight.

    SC on the Appeal filed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986:

    • Qualifications of Advisory Board Members: Justice Pardiwala emphasized that having qualified individuals, potentially fit to become High Court judges, on advisory boards was crucial. This ensures robust scrutiny of government detention orders.
    • Responsibilities of Advisory Boards: These boards, mandated by various laws, are required to review detention orders every three months. 
    • Substantial Evidence to justify detention: Justice Pardiwala highlighted the unfairness of depriving someone of their Personal Liberty based merely on the assumption that they might commit a crime in the future. He stressed the importance of substantial evidence to justify detention.
    • Absence of Evidence of Threat to Public Order: The Supreme Court observed that the state failed to provide sufficient material indicating that the detained individual posed a genuine threat to public order. Specifically, there was no substantial evidence linking him to activities that could disrupt public order.

    The distinction between ‘Public order’ and ‘Law and Order’, and the Preventive Detention 

    • Differentiating ‘Public Order’ and ‘Law and Order’: Justice Pardiwala highlighted the distinction between ‘law and order’ issues, which affect only a few individuals, and ‘public order’ concerns, which have a broader impact on the community or even the entire country.
    • Limitations on Preventive Detention: The SC emphasized that preventive detention should only be utilized in exceptional circumstances.  
    • Quashing of Detention Order: Justice Pardiwala ordered the quashing of the detention order against the appellant based on the absence of his direct involvement in any of the First Information Reports (FIRs).  

    Conclusion: The Supreme Court emphasizes advisory boards in preventive detention laws aren’t mere rubber stamps for the government but safeguards for personal liberty. They must ensure the necessity of detention, backed by substantial evidence, and limit preventive detention to exceptional circumstances.

    Mains question for practice

    Q Discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the role of advisory boards in preventive detention laws ( 150 words ) 

  • [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    PYQ Relevance:

    Mains:
    1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine (2018)

    2. What are the two major legal initiatives by state since Independence, addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (ST)? (2017)

    3. Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (2016)

    Prelims:
    Under the Indian Constitution, the Concentration of Wealth violates​ (2021)
    a) the Right to Equality​
    b) the Directive Principles of State Policy​
    c) the Right to Freedom​
    d) the Concept of Welfare
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Minority sections of the society and their Empowerment; Judiciary; State government;

    Prelims: Fundamental rights; Important judgements by SC; State government;

    Mentor comments: Recently, the case of ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ revolves around the question of whether State governments can make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for public employment. The Supreme Court is set to deliver a judgment on this matter, addressing the issue of intra-group variances and the power of States to recognize them. We need to analyze this issue as it is sub-classified SC reservations which are leading to legal challenges and subsequent legislative actions.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The SC is set to deliver a judgment on whether State governments can make sub-classifications within SCs and STs, addressing the varying levels of development and discrimination within these groups. 

    Context:

    • The ongoing case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh has brought to light the complexities surrounding sub-classification within reserved categories.
    • The central question revolves around whether a group within a reserved category can be further sub-classified and granted reservations.
    • Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups, addressing the issue of backwardness within backwardness.
    • On the other hand, opponents contend that the existing reservation scheme already ensures adequate representation for historically disadvantaged groups, making sub-classification unnecessary.
    JUDICIARY ON SUB-CATEGORIZATION WITHIN RESERVED CATEGORIES:

    1) State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case (1975):

    – In 1975, the Government of Punjab issued a circular that reserved 50% of SC seats for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, leading to legal challenges culminating in the Supreme Court’s involvement.

    – The case questions whether sub-classifications are constitutionally permissible within SCs and STs, challenging the notion that these groups are homogenous.

    – The debate involves revisiting past judgments like E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibited sub-classifications within SCs but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

    2) Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case (1992):

    – The SC cited its judgment which arose out of the Mandal Commission’s report. There, a nine-judge Bench had held that sub-classifications within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for services under the government was permissible.

    – The case introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding affluent sections within backward classes (limited it to not exceed 50%) from reservation benefits.

    – The genesis of this debate dates back to 1980 when the Second Backward Classes Committee, chaired by BP Mandal, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs and 22.5% for Scheduled Castes.

    3) About E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh Case (2004):

    – A five-judge Bench quashed the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000. The Act was challenged before the High Court and later the Supreme Court, which declared it ‘ultra vires the Constitution’ as it offended Article 341 of the Constitution.

    – This provision allows the President of India to notify a list of SCs for each State, and stipulates that the list can only be modified by Parliament.

    – The case prohibited sub-classifications within SCs as it was found to violate constitutional provisions but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It emphasized that SCs and STs are homogeneous groups incapable of further regrouping or classification.

    – The Court found that the State government had no power to tinker with the list because it was clear on a bare reading of Article 341 that such authority vested only with Parliament.

    What is the difference between a homogenous class and a sub-classification within reserved categories?

    • A homogenous class refers to a group that is considered uniform or undifferentiated, where all individuals within the group are treated equally.
    • The Sub-classification within reserved categories involves categorizing a larger group into smaller sub-groups based on specific criteria, allowing for differential treatment or preferences within the overall category.
    • The distinction lies in how individuals within a larger reserved category are treated – either uniformly as a single homogenous group or with differentiated preferences based on sub-classifications.

    What are the arguments for and against sub-classification within reserved categories?

    Arguments for Sub-classification:

    • Ensuring Adequate Representation: Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups within reserved categories.
    • Tailoring Criteria for Sub-classification: The court needs to tailor criteria for sub-classification to prevent leaving out certain groups while granting benefits to the most backward.
    • State’s Ability to Identify Backwardness: The states needs to be best positioned to judge the backwardness of communities and should have the authority to create sub-classifications within reserved categories without violating constitutional provisions.

    Arguments against Sub-classification:

    • Presumption of Backwardness: Opponents argue that while there is a presumption of backwardness with Scheduled Castes (SCs), individual castes within SCs cannot be considered separate classes under Article 16(4), suggesting that making laws for specific castes within SC lists could violate Article 16(2).
    • Violation of Equality Principle: Critics assert that sub-classification would violate the right to equality by treating communities within the category differently, potentially leading to discrimination based on caste, which is prohibited under Article 16(2).
    • Stigma and Exclusion: Those against sub-classification argue that if certain Scheduled Castes do not receive reservation benefits, they may be left with the stigma of being a Scheduled Caste without access to affirmative action measures, highlighting concerns about exclusion and inequality.

    What are the challenges faced by Sub-Classifications within Reserved Categories in India?

    • Lack of Equal Opportunities: Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution promises of substantive equality. The absence of sub-classification perpetuates inequality within reserved categories, hinders the framing of appropriate government policies.
    • Legal and Constitutional Complexities: The states face challenges as they lack legislative competence to create sub-classifications within reserved categories, raising questions about the constitutionality of such measures.
    • Addressing Backwardness: The issue of “backwardness within backwardness” has been acknowledged, emphasizing the need to address the most disadvantaged communities effectively.

    Way Forward

    Considering the above challenges, they highlight the complexities and nuances involved in addressing sub-classifications within reserved categories in India. Hence it is necessary to emphasize on careful consideration and legal clarity in policy-making and implementation. The SC’s decision in cases like ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ will play a crucial role in shaping affirmative action discourse and addressing issues of social justice within reserved categories

  • India’s Bail System: Challenges and Prospects

    bail

    In the news

    • India’s bail system faces significant challenges, resulting in a large number of undertrials remaining in prison despite being granted bail.
    • The complexities of complying with bail conditions, especially for marginalized individuals, exacerbate the situation.

    Bail Provisions in India

    Description
    What is Bail? The conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. It also refers to the security deposit to secure the release of the accused.
    Types of Bail in India
    • Regular bail: Granted to a person in police custody, applied for under section 437 and 439 of CrPC.
    • Interim bail: Short-term bail granted before the hearing for regular or anticipatory bail.
    • Anticipatory bail: Granted under section 438 of CrPC by session court or High Court, to avoid potential arrest for a non-bailable offense.
    Case in Bailable Offences Section 436 states that accused of a bailable offence under IPC can be granted bail if:

    1. There’s reason to believe the accused didn’t commit the offence.
    2. There’s need for further inquiry.
    3. Accused isn’t charged with an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
    Bail for Non-Bailable Offences Section 437 states that accused doesn’t have the right to apply for bail. Bail may be granted if:

    1. Accused is a woman or child.
    2. Lack of evidence.
    3. Delay in lodging FIR.
    4. Accused is gravely sick.

    Understanding the Crisis in Bail System

    • Overrepresentation of Undertrials: Over 75% of India’s prison population comprises undertrials, reflecting systemic inefficiencies in the bail system.
    • Judicial Reluctance: Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted a growing reluctance among trial judges to grant bail, leading to a situation where incarceration becomes the norm.
    • Bail Backlog: The backlog of bail applications further exacerbates the problem, prolonging the detention of undertrials awaiting trial.

    Judicial Acknowledgment and Guidelines

    • Supreme Court’s Observations: The Supreme Court acknowledged the ineffectiveness of India’s bail system in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, emphasizing the principle of ‘bail not jail’.
    • Need for Legislative Action: The Court urged the enactment of separate legislation and laid down comprehensive guidelines to streamline bail procedures.
    • Delayed Disposal of Applications: Despite court directives, delays in the disposal of bail applications contribute to prolonged detention of undertrials.

    Empirical Assessment and Policy Reforms

    • Lack of Empirical Evidence: The absence of empirical data hampers efforts to understand the bail system’s challenges comprehensively.
    • Socio-economic Barriers: Bail laws disproportionately burden marginalized individuals, necessitating reforms based on a realistic assessment of the problem.
    • No Data-driven Reform: Policymakers should prioritize empirical research to inform evidence-based policy reforms aimed at addressing systemic inequalities.

    Safeguards and Adjudication Practices

    • Arrest Safeguards: Existing safeguards against arbitrary arrest often exclude vulnerable populations, contributing to the high proportion of undertrials.
    • Discretionary Adjudication: Courts exercise discretion in granting bail, but guidelines lack clarity on how socioeconomic factors influence bail decisions.
    • Recording Reasons for Bail Denial: Courts should be mandated to record detailed reasons for denying bail, promoting transparency and accountability in the adjudication process.

    Bail Compliance Challenges

    • Financial Hurdles: Many undertrials struggle to comply with bail conditions due to financial constraints and lack of local sureties.
    • Structural Disadvantages: Factors like lack of residence proof and family support further hinder undertrials’ ability to comply with bail conditions.
    • Support Mechanisms: Establishing support mechanisms to assist undertrials in navigating the bail process and fulfilling conditions can alleviate compliance challenges.

    Why bail needs reform?

    • Indiscriminate arrests: Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offense, being charged with offenses punishable for seven years or less.
    • Disadvantageous for some sections: They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offense being inherited by many of them.
    • Colonial legacy: Theoretically, the court also linked the idea of indiscriminate arrests to magistrates ignoring the rule of “bail, not jail” to a colonial mindset.

    Way forward

    • No Flawed Assumptions: The current bail system operates on flawed assumptions about the accused’s socio-economic status, rendering ‘bail not jail’ meaningless for many.
    • Call for Bail Reform: Meaningful bail reform necessitates a reevaluation of these assumptions and a data-driven approach to diagnose systemic issues.
    • Holistic Approach: Reform efforts should adopt a holistic approach, addressing both procedural inadequacies and socio-economic barriers to ensure equitable access to bail.

    Conclusion

    • India’s bail system stands at a critical juncture, with an urgent need for reform to address systemic inefficiencies and ensure justice for all.
    • Empirical research, legislative action, and judicial scrutiny are essential components of a comprehensive reform agenda.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2021:

    With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1. Judicial custody means and accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in a 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

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”wwodi0ynqz” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your responses here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Should India have regional benches of the Supreme Court?

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice informed the Lok Sabha that the Law Ministry has accepted its recommendation to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court across India.

    About the Supreme Court:

    • The Supreme Court of India has three jurisdictions under the Constitution: original, appellate, and advisory.
    • The Supreme Court serves as a Constitutional Court as well as a Court of Appeal. The Court sits in benches of varying sizes, as determined by the Registry on the directions of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

    About SC Constitution Benches:

    • Constitution Bench typically comprises of five, seven, or nine judges who deliberate on a specific issue related to constitutional law.
    • Article 130 says that “the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.” It shows that the Supreme Court Rules give the Chief Justice of India the power to constitute Benches.
    • Article 145(3) of the Constitution provides for the setting up of a Constitution Bench.
      • Under Article 143, a minimum of five judges need to sit for deciding a case involving a “substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution”, or for hearing any reference, which deals with the power of the President to consult the Court.

     View of Supreme Court on setting of regional benches

    • Recently, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud announced his intent to create Constitution Benches of varied strengths as a permanent feature of the Court.
    • The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice had earlier noted that the demand for having regional benches of the Supreme Court is about ‘access to justice,’ which is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court previously has been continuously rejecting the idea.
    • During 2019, former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi supported the view, but minimal progress was made during his tenure. In contrast, during the 74-day tenure of former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, 25 Constitution Bench matters were listed before five-judge benches.

    Recommendations by the Law Commissions on the setting of regional benches:

    • 10th Law Commission (95th Report), 1984: The Supreme Court of India should consist of two Divisions, namely (a) Constitutional Division, and (b) Legal Division”, and that “only matters of Constitutional law may be assigned to the proposed Constitutional Division”.
    • 11th Law Commission (125th Report), 1988: Recommended for splitting the (Supreme) Court into two halves deserves to be implemented.
    • 18th Law Commission (229th Report), 2009: Recommended that “a Constitution Bench be set up at Delhi to deal with constitutional and other allied issues”, and “four Cassation Benches be set up in the Northern region/zone at Delhi, the Southern region/zone at Chennai/Hyderabad, the Eastern region/zone at Kolkata and the Western region/zone at Mumbai to deal with all appellate work arising out of the orders/judgments of the High Courts of the particular region”.

    The Union Government today said the setting up of the Regional Benches of the Supreme Court in different parts of the country is under examination of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme

    Significance of Regional Benches in India:

    • High Pendency of Cases: In the Supreme Court, a little more than 80,000 cases are currently pending adjudication out of which 60,000 cases are civil. This cannot be alleviated only through usual methods and is highly dependent upon the efforts and efficiency of the Chief Justice.
    • Insufficient Case Disposal Rates: In 2023, the Supreme Court witnessed a 31% increase in the disposal of cases compared to 2022.
      • However, such a disposal rate is negligible when compared to the total pendency of cases.
    • Democratization of Justice: The setting up of regional benches would also lead to greater opportunities and the democratization of the Bar.
      • For example, there was lots of opposition when the jurisdiction of the Tis Hazari Court was divided into different district courts. However, 10-15 years down the line, a vibrant District Bar in Saket, Rohini, and Karkardooma can be seen.
    • Access to Justice for All: People are reluctant to accept arbitrary actions of the state and its agencies and are increasingly approaching courts of law. The outcome of such cases demands further adjudication by the Supreme Court. Also, it becomes difficult for people living in States far away from Delhi to agitate their cause.
    • Importance of Litigant Presence: It is easy to say that the presence of a litigant is not required in appellate forums but the reality is that every litigant wishes to visit his lawyer and witness court proceedings involving his case.
    • Boosting Judicial System with More Judges: The establishment of regional benches will increase the number of judges as well as lawyers resulting in a much-needed boost to our judicial system.

    Challenges associated with regional benches:

    • Status issues:
      • Dilution of sacrosanct nature: Critics argue that the idea of setting up regional benches will lead to Balkanization of the Supreme Court and lessen the binding force of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
      • Territorial Interference: India being diverse country, have emerging diverse views in judiciary too. Hence, the newly formed regional benches can create conflict of interest by interfering in the territorial jurisdiction of the HCs which may adversely affect our justice system.
    • Implementation issues:
      • Rectifying the imbalances: Major of the cases filed in Apex court, arise from nearby High Courts in north India, this imbalance cannot be rectified by using this solution.
      • Frivolous Petitions: If Justice is that easily accessible considering geographical aspect, there is a possibility of numerous frivolous petitions being filed.

    Way Forward:

    • Need for Enhancing Judicial Infrastructure: Some broader judicial reforms are needed to address the systemic issues such as judicial backlog, delay in justice delivery, and judicial vacancies, which are crucial for improving the overall functioning of the legal system.
      • Explore the use of technology, such as video conferencing and virtual courtrooms, to enhance access to justice and facilitate remote adjudication of cases, especially in remote or underserved areas.
    • Need a balanced approach: The debate on regional benches for the Supreme Court involves considerations of accessibility, case management, and judicial efficiency. While proponents see it as vital for access, opponents emphasize potential drawbacks. Striking a balance necessitates thorough evaluation and careful implementation of reforms.

  • Notable Jurist Fali S Nariman Passes Away at 95

    nariman

    Introduction

    • Fali S. Nariman, an eminent jurist and Senior Advocate, left an indelible mark on India’s legal landscape over his illustrious 75-year career.
    • Representing clients in a multitude of landmark cases, his contributions reshaped constitutional jurisprudence and safeguarded democratic principles.

    Legacy in Indian Jurisprudence

    [1] Upholding Judicial Independence: The Second Judges Case

    • Legal Battle: Advocating before the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1981), Nariman challenged the interpretation of “consultation” in judicial appointments, emphasizing its binding nature to preserve judicial autonomy.
    • Judicial Triumph: Nariman’s advocacy led to the establishment of the Supreme Court Collegium, ensuring transparent and independent judicial appointments, a landmark decision that endures to this day.

    [2] Clarifying Judicial Procedures: The Third Judges Case

    • Presidential Reference: Nariman contributed to the Supreme Court’s deliberations in Special Reference 1 (1998), facilitating a structured consultative process for judicial appointments, reinforcing the judiciary’s collective responsibility.
    • Expanded Collegium: His efforts expanded the scope of judicial consultation, enhancing transparency and accountability in the appointment process.

    [3] Protecting Judicial Independence: National Judicial Appointments Commission Case

    • Challenging Executive Interference: In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, Nariman vehemently opposed the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014, safeguarding judicial autonomy against executive overreach.
    • Triumph for Collegium System: His advocacy contributed to the reinstatement of the collegium system, preserving the judiciary’s prerogative in judicial appointments.

    [4] Championing Fundamental Rights: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab Case

    • Constitutional Challenge: Nariman’s intervention in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) underscored Parliament’s limitations in amending fundamental rights, reinforcing the sanctity of constitutional provisions.
    • Protecting Liberties: His advocacy upheld the inviolability of fundamental rights, ensuring the primacy of constitutional principles.

    [5] Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989)

    • Navigating Tragedy: Nariman’s representation of Union Carbide in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy facilitated a landmark settlement, ensuring timely compensation for victims and environmental remediation.

    [6] Safeguarding Minority Rights: TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

    • Advocating Pluralism: Nariman’s involvement in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka underscored the constitutional protection of minority rights in education, fostering inclusivity and diversity in the educational landscape.

    [7] Upholding Constitutional Norms: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker

    • Restoring Constitutional Order: Nariman’s intervention in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) reaffirmed the constitutional mandate for gubernatorial action, preserving democratic governance and institutional integrity.

    [8] Ensuring Legal Fairness: J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Tamil Nadu

    • Securing Justice: Nariman’s successful bail plea for Jayalalithaa exemplified his commitment to due process, ensuring equitable legal treatment for all individuals before the law.

    [9] Resolving Inter-State Disputes: State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu

    • Navigating Complexities: Nariman’s representation in the Cauvery water dispute showcased his dedication to resolving interstate conflicts through legal avenues, contributing to the equitable allocation of vital natural resources.

    Conclusion

    • Fali S. Nariman’s illustrious legal career stands as a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
    • His profound influence on Indian jurisprudence reverberates through landmark decisions and enduring legal principles, leaving an indelible mark on the nation’s legal landscape.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 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 legislative 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?

    1. 1 and 3 only
    2. 3 and 4 only
    3. 4 only
    4. 1, 2, 3 and 4

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”0xtz0ve9ke” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Judicial clarity on free speech

    Kunal Kamra held Arnab Goswami to account. What's with the outrage?

    Central Idea:

    Justice Gautam Patel’s landmark decision on the Kunal Kamra’s case underscores the critical importance of upholding the constitutional right to free speech, particularly in the realm of social media. The decision highlights the inherent dangers of arbitrary censorship and the need for clear, reasonable restrictions in line with constitutional principles.

    Key Highlights:

    • Upholding Free Speech: The decision reaffirms the sacrosanct nature of the constitutional guarantee of free speech, emphasizing its protection against undue state encroachment.
    • Rejection of Arbitrary Censorship: Justice Patel condemns the amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules 2021 as vague and overbroad, posing a threat to critical discourse and debate.
    • Constitutional Principles: The judgment invokes Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the amended rule infringes upon fundamental rights and lacks reasonable standards.
    • Importance of Judicial Review: The decision underscores the role of judicial review in curbing potential abuses of power by government entities, particularly in safeguarding democratic principles.
    • Recognition of Digital Regulation: While acknowledging the need to combat misinformation, the judgment insists on the importance of balanced regulation that respects free speech rights.

    Key Challenges:

    • Interpretation of Constitutional Rights: Balancing free speech with the need for regulation presents a challenge in defining clear and reasonable restrictions.
    • Enforcement and Compliance: Ensuring compliance with constitutional principles and judicial decisions poses challenges in a dynamic digital landscape.
    • Government Response: The government’s response to judicial decisions and its commitment to upholding constitutional principles may vary, influencing the effectiveness of legal interventions.

    Main Terms or key terms for answer writing:

    • Free Speech
    • Constitutional Guarantee
    • Social Media Regulation
    • Arbitrary Censorship
    • Judicial Review
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Digital Platforms
    • Misinformation
    • Democratic Principles

    Important Phrases for good marks in mains:

    • “The sacrosanctity of the inviolate constitutional guarantee of free speech”
    • “Vague and overbroad”
    • “The imperative of combatting fakery and misinformation”
    • “A bulwark against the excesses of majoritarian assemblies”
    • “Agents of injustice”
    • “Inter-institutional comity”

    Quotes that you can use in essay for value addition:

    • “The cacophony of dissent and disagreement is the symphony of a democracy at work.”
    • “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.”
    • “The will of the State is subject to scrutiny by those affected by the exercise of State power.”
    • “Democratic power is a trust held upon conditions.”

    Useful Statements for value addition:

    • “The decision reaffirms the constitutional conscience and rejects the potential for wanton abuse of power.”
    • “Fear-instilled stillness ill serves the case of a vibrant democracy.”
    • “A law that permits its enforcers to become agents of injustice cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy.”

    Examples and References:

    Facts and Data for value addition and credibility to your arguments:

    • Mention of the amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules 2021.
    • Reference to Justice Patel’s decision on the Kunal Kamra’s case, dated 31st January.

    Critical Analysis:

    Justice Patel’s decision serves as a significant safeguard against potential abuses of power and underscores the importance of upholding free speech in the digital age. By rejecting arbitrary censorship and emphasizing the need for clear, reasonable restrictions, the judgment sets a crucial precedent for protecting democratic principles.

    Way Forward:

    • Ensure compliance with constitutional principles in regulating digital platforms.
    • Encourage balanced regulation that combats misinformation while respecting free speech rights.
    • Foster inter-institutional comity by heeding judicial decisions and promoting democratic accountability.

    By adhering to these principles, policymakers can navigate the complexities of digital regulation while upholding fundamental rights and democratic values.

    Improve your answer writing with us and crack the mains 

    Try to attempt following question and write the answer in comment box below

    1. How does Justice Patel’s decision in the Kunal Kamra’s case uphold the constitutional right to free speech?
    2. What are the key challenges in balancing free speech with the need for regulation, as highlighted in the judgment?
    3. How does the judgment emphasize the importance of judicial review in safeguarding democratic principles in the digital age?

  • An intervention that will help strengthen legal education

    The present scenario of legal education in India - iPleaders

    Central Idea:

    The article discusses the recent recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice to enhance the quality of legal education in India. It highlights the need for a new regulatory body, the National Council for Legal Education and Research (NCLER), to oversee post-graduation level education, prioritize research in law schools, and address the challenges hindering the excellence of legal education in the country.

    Key Highlights:

    • Recommendations for Regulatory Reform: The committee proposes limiting the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) role in legal education regulation and establishing the NCLER to set qualitative benchmarks for post-graduation level education.
    • Emphasis on Research: Recognizing the deficiency in research focus among Indian law schools, the committee stresses the importance of promoting research to improve teaching outcomes and cultivate critical thinking skills among students.
    • Global Perspective: Acknowledging the impact of globalization on legal education, the committee suggests incorporating global curriculum, international exchange programs, and more international law courses to prepare students for a globalizing world.
    • Call for Strong Leadership and Academic Freedom: The article emphasizes the necessity for passionate and visionary academic leaders in law faculties and universities to foster a supportive environment for faculty and promote academic freedom.

    Key Challenges:

    • Lack of Leadership: The absence of effective leadership in law faculties and universities impedes efforts to achieve excellence in legal education.
    • Insufficient Research Focus: Many law schools in India prioritize teaching over research, resulting in a scarcity of indigenous legal knowledge and reliance on Western legal literature.
    • Resistance to Change: Implementing reforms in legal education requires a shift in mindset among stakeholders and a commitment to prioritize higher education.

    Main Terms or key quotes:

    • National Council for Legal Education and Research (NCLER)
    • Bar Council of India (BCI)
    • Globalization
    • Academic Freedom

    Important Phrases for mains answer enrichment:

    • “Sea of institutionalized mediocrity”
    • “Consumer of legal knowledge generated in the West”
    • “Augmenting the research ecosystem”
    • “Complete academic freedom and autonomy”

    Quotes for quality essay:

    • Albert Einstein: “The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think.”
    • Jawaharlal Nehru: “A university stands for humanism, for tolerance, for reason, for the adventure of ideas and for the search of truth.”

    Useful Statements:

    • “Legal education in India needs regulatory reform to address its current shortcomings and enhance its quality.”
    • “Promoting research is crucial to improving teaching outcomes and fostering critical thinking skills among students.”
    • “Effective leadership and academic freedom are essential for driving meaningful change in legal education.”

    Examples and References:

    • National Law School of India University and Jindal Global Law School are among the few Indian law schools ranked in the top 250 globally.
    • Out of over 800 law journals indexed in Scopus, only a handful are from India, indicating the low level of research output from Indian law schools.

    Facts and Data:

    • India has over 1,700 law schools, but only a few have achieved excellence in legal education.
    • Legal education in India has historically lagged behind fields like medicine and engineering in terms of priority and investment.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article aptly highlights the systemic challenges plaguing legal education in India and the urgent need for reform. It identifies regulatory deficiencies, research gaps, and leadership issues as key barriers to achieving excellence. However, it fails to delve deeply into the specific strategies or mechanisms required to address these challenges.

    Way Forward:

    • Implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee to establish the NCLER and redefine the role of the BCI.
    • Invest in promoting research culture in law schools through funding, infrastructure, and academic support.
    • Encourage academic leadership that fosters a culture of innovation, excellence, and academic freedom.
    • Foster collaboration between law schools, industry, and international institutions to enhance curriculum relevance and global exposure for students.

    In conclusion, while the recommendations put forth by the committee represent a step in the right direction, concerted efforts from all stakeholders are necessary to bring about meaningful change and elevate the quality of legal education in India.

  • Places of worship and an unsettling judicial silence

    Supreme Court to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on January 4 | India News - The Indian Express

    Central Idea:

    The article discusses the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict on the Babri Masjid case in November 2019 and its implications on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. It highlights the challenges posed by the resurgence of petitions targeting mosques like the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and the subsequent debates on the Act’s validity and applicability. It emphasizes the need for the Supreme Court to intervene to protect the integrity of the Act and prevent its politicization.

    Key Highlights:

    • Supreme Court’s verdict on the Babri Masjid case in November 2019 praised the Places of Worship Act, 1991 for preserving the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947.
    • Hindutva forces initiated petitions targeting mosques in Mathura, Varanasi, and other places, challenging their status and calling for their liberation.
    • Despite lack of concrete evidence, petitions against mosques were admitted in various district courts, signaling a deliberate challenge to the Places of Worship Act.
    • The Supreme Court’s silence on the increasing challenges to the Act raised concerns about its integrity and enforcement.
    • The court’s decision to hear petitions against the Act itself and the Union government’s delays in specifying its stance raised doubts about the Act’s future.

    Key Challenges:

    • Increasing petitions challenging the status of mosques threaten communal harmony and challenge the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
    • The politicization of the issue, with petitions being used as a tool to further certain political narratives, adds complexity to the debate.
    • Delays in the Supreme Court’s intervention and the government’s ambiguity on the Act’s status create uncertainty and erode public trust in the legal system.
    • Historical grievances and communal tensions fuel the resurgence of demands for the reclamation of religious sites.

    Main Terms or key words:

    • Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: Legislation preserving the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, and prohibiting their conversion.
    • Hindutva: Ideology promoting Hindu nationalism.
    • Communal Harmony: Peaceful coexistence and cooperation among different religious communities.
    • Secularism: Principle of separating religion from state affairs and ensuring equal treatment of all religions.
    • Petitions: Formal requests submitted to a court seeking legal action or remedy.

    Important Phrases for mains value addition:

    • “Non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values.”
    • “Challenges to the Act amount to a breach of public trust.”
    • “The politicization of petitions serves certain political narratives.”
    • “The silence of the top court is unsettling.”

    Quotes for quality enrichment of mains answers:

    • “The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution.”
    • “Similarly minded people are as little likely to be deterred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.”
    • “The ascertainment of the religious character of a place as a procedural instrument may not necessarily fall foul of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1991.”

    Anecdotes:

    • The order of a district court in Uttar Pradesh in 1986 kick-started events leading to the destruction of the Babri Masjid, illustrating the significance of legal decisions regarding places of worship.

    Useful Statements:

    • The resurgence of demands for the reclamation of religious sites threatens communal harmony and challenges secular principles.
    • The Supreme Court’s intervention is crucial to uphold the integrity of the Places of Worship Act and prevent its politicization.

    Examples and References:

    • Petitions targeting mosques in Mathura, Varanasi, and other places highlight the growing challenges to the Places of Worship Act.
    • The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi agitation and slogans like “Ayodhya to jhanki hai, Kashi, Mathura baqi hai” demonstrate historical grievances and communal tensions.

    Facts and Data:

    • The Places of Worship Act, 1991, preserves the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947.
    • The Supreme Court admitted petitions challenging the Act’s validity and the government’s delays in specifying its stance.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges posed by petitions targeting mosques and questioning the Places of Worship Act, 1991. It emphasizes the importance of preserving communal harmony and secular principles while addressing historical grievances. However, it also highlights the politicization of the issue and the need for timely intervention by the Supreme Court to prevent further escalation.

    Way Forward:

    • The Supreme Court should actively intervene to uphold the integrity of the Places of Worship Act and prevent its politicization.
    • Political leaders and stakeholders should prioritize communal harmony and refrain from using religious sentiments for political gain.
    • Civil society should promote dialogue and understanding among different religious communities to prevent communal tensions.
    • The government should clarify its stance on the Act and ensure its effective implementation to maintain secularism and protect religious freedoms.

  • Four issues that CJI highlighted within Legal Profession

    cji

    Introduction

    • During the Supreme Court’s 75th-year Foundation Day address, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted four crucial issues within the judiciary that require “difficult conversations.”
    • This article delves into these issues and their historical context.

    Major Issues with Legal Profession

    [1] Problem of “Adjournment Culture”

    • Definition: Adjournment culture refers to the practice of lawyers repeatedly seeking adjournments, delaying scheduled hearings.
    • Effect on Justice: Prolonged adjournments lead to case delays and contribute to the growing backlog of pending cases.
    • Legal Framework: Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 sets rules for granting adjournments, limiting them to three times, with sufficient cause shown.
    • Vicious Cycle: Advocates exploit heavy workloads to seek adjournments, perpetuating delays.

    [2] Managing Lengthy Oral Arguments

    • Constitutional Bench Matters: The court directs parties to schedule oral arguments to avoid repetition in important cases.
    • Mixed Success: Past cases, like the Ayodhya title dispute, had lengthy hearings despite scheduling.
    • Recent Improvements: Under CJI UU Lalit, a Constitution Bench case involving EWS reservations achieved efficiency through time scheduling.
    • US Model: The US Supreme Court restricts oral arguments to 30 minutes per side, considered but not adopted in India.

    [3] Alternatives to Extended Court Vacations

    • Flexi-Time: Introducing flexi-time for lawyers and judges is suggested, allowing them to choose working hours within a specified total.
    • Philippines Example: The Philippines implemented flexi-time for court employees based on valid reasons.
    • Historical Suggestions: Past reports and government recommendations aimed to reduce court vacations to tackle case backlog.
    • Supreme Court Rules: In 2014, the court limited summer vacations to seven weeks instead of ten.

    [4] Ensuring Equal Opportunities for First-Generation Lawyers

    • Leveling the Field: The CJI emphasizes providing a level playing field for first-generation lawyers and marginalized segments with the potential to succeed.
    • Progress: Over 50% of junior civil judge exam candidates are women, and 41% of Supreme Court law clerk candidates are women.
    • Inclusivity Efforts: Initiatives by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) aim to support diversity, including giving weightage to first-generation lawyers for Senior Advocate designations.
    • Judicial Recognition: The judiciary acknowledges the growth and contributions of first-generation lawyers, dismissing claims that recognition is solely based on wealth and proximity.

    Conclusion

    • The judiciary faces multifaceted challenges, including adjournment culture, oral argument lengths, court vacations, and ensuring a fair platform for first-generation lawyers.
    • Addressing these issues requires frank discussions, reforms, and continued efforts to uphold the principles of justice and inclusivity within the legal profession.