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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • 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.

  • Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.

    “Indian Judiciary is not only guardian of the Constitution but also Active Participants in the Social Revolution.” – J.L. Nehru. Greater women representation in the judiciary is essential for this vision.

    Desirability of Greater Representation

    Constitutional Imperative – Fulfils Articles 14, 15(3), and 39A, ensuring equal opportunity and access to justice for all.

    Corrects Historical Imbalance- Addresses structural and institutional barriers in legal and judicial careers.

    Diversity of Perspective – Women judges bring unique social insights, empathy, and lived experiences, enriching judicial reasoning and deliberation.

    Gender-Sensitive Adjudication – Enhances sensitivity in matters of sexual violence, family law, and gender rights. Eg- Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent in Sabarimala (2018).

    Enhances Legitimacy and Public Trust – A judiciary reflective of society’s diversity strengthens citizen confidence in judicial impartiality.

    Democratization of Judiciary – Promotes inclusive representation across gender, class, and region, aligning with democratic ideals.

    Global Democratic Benchmark – Countries like Canada and the UK have achieved near gender parity, improving judicial balance and inclusivity.

    Role-Model Effect – Inspires women in the legal profession, helping address underrepresentation in senior judicial positions.

    “There is no better test of the excellence of government than the working of its judicial system.” – Lord Bryce. The true measure of that excellence lies in Gender Equality in Judiciary.

  • Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

    Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial mechanism that allows any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the court on behalf of others for the enforcement of fundamental or legal rights. It evolved in India as a tool of “social action litigation”, expanding the reach of justice under Article 32 and 226.

    Objectives PIL

    Accessibility of Justice

    Government Accountability

    Judicial Oversight

    Rule of Law and Balance

    Reasons for the Growth of PIL in India

    Historical Reasons- Postcolonial India witnessed deep social inequality and poverty. PIL emerged as a tool for social transformation and distributive justice.

    Liberalization of Locus Standi- Shift from “personally aggrieved” to “any public-spirited citizen” can file a case.

    Judicial Activism- Post-Emergency judiciary reasserted itself as the guardian of rights and liberties. Eg- Justice Krishna Iyer first introduced the idea of public interest litigation in India in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai in 1976.

    Decline of Parliament- Legislative inefficiency and lack of responsiveness to social issues. Eg- Visaka Guidelines

    Rise of Civil Society Activism- Growth of NGOs, media, and human rights groups. Began using PILs to advance environmental, social, and human rights causes. Eg- Right to livelihood under Article 32 in Bandhua Mukti Morcha judgment

    Executive Overreach and Inaction- Bureaucratic corruption, maladministration, and policy failures prompted the judiciary to step in as a corrective mechanism. Eg- Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) – CBI accountability case.

    Global Factors- Comparative judicial trends (e.g., U.S. public interest litigation) inspired Indian legal activism.

    Constitutional Powers and Design- Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) provided moral backing for socio-economic justice through judicial intervention.

    Expansion of Fundamental Rights- Courts interpreted Article 21 broadly – including right to livelihood, education, health, and clean environment (Olga Tellis, 1985; M.C. Mehta, 1986).

    Indian Supreme Court as the world’s most powerful judiciary

    Arguments in Favour

    Widest Judicial Review Powers- Can strike down laws, executive actions, and even constitutional amendments under Articles 13, 32, and 226. Eg- NJAC verdict

    Suo Motu Jurisdiction- Eg- SC took suo motu cognizance of COVID-19 Migrant Crisis (2020).

    Epistolary Jurisdiction- Allows letters/postcards as petitions, widening access to justice. Eg- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) – Letter treated as habeas corpus.

    Expansion of Fundamental Rights- Eg- Puttaswamy (2017) – Right to Privacy recognized as a Fundamental Right.

    Judicial Oversight on Policy- Eg- Vishaka Guidelines (1997) – Workplace sexual harassment norms framed by the SC.

    Legislative powers under Article 141 and Executive powers under Article 142. Eg- SC judgment on government’s veto power

    Moral and Institutional Legitimacy- Eg- Navtej Johar (2018) – Decriminalized homosexuality on grounds of dignity and liberty.

    Arguments Against

    Judicial Overreach- Encroachment into executive and legislative domains. Eg- SC ban on firecrackers was criticized for overreach.

    Weak Enforcement Capacity- Eg- Prakash Singh Police Reforms (2006) – Non-compliance by most states.

    Frivolous or Politically Motivated PILs increase pendency (more than 5Cr cases pending) Eg- Misuse in Election-related PILs delaying legitimate processes.

    Lack of Judicial Accountability- Eg- In-House Inquiry (Justice Ramaswamy case) exposed inadequacies in judicial discipline.

    Opaque Collegium System- criticised for lack of transparency and nepotism. Eg- uncle judge syndrome (law commission)

    Inconsistency and Selective Intervention- Uneven judicial response to similar issues affects credibility. Eg- Contrasting stances in Bail cases.

    Frequent judicial intrusion weakens separation of powers.

    Way Forward

    Institutional Restraint- Judiciary must uphold separation of powers

    Enforce strict scrutiny of PILs to prevent misuse for personal, political, or publicity motives.

    Develop a judgment-monitoring mechanism to ensure effective execution of court orders

    Promote constitutional literacy and encourage responsible use of judicial remedies by citizens.

    Dedicated PIL Cells in High Courts

    As Justice J.S. Verma cautioned, “Judicial activism must not become judicial adventurism.” Thus, judicial activism must be balanced with Judicial Restraint.

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements :
    1. The Advocate General of a State in India is appointed by the President ot India upon the recommendation of the Governor of the concerned State.
    2. As provided in Civil Procedure Code, High Courts have original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction at the State level.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    1. The- motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what Constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
    3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
    4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
    2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • With reference to India, consider the following statements

    With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1.Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate, and such an accused is locked up in the police station, not in jail.
    2.During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements :

    1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
    2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
    3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
    4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?4

  • Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea Against Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that courts should not ordinarily interfere in an ongoing electoral process.

    Background

    • Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan was the party’s sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.
    • The Returning Officer (RO) rejected her nomination on 9 June 2026 for allegedly failing to disclose a pending criminal proceeding in Hyderabad in Form 26 (election affidavit).
    • Subsequently, BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat were elected unopposed.

    Key Constitutional Principle

    • Article 329(b) of the Constitution: Bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
    • Provides that elections to Parliament or State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition in the manner prescribed by law.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226 to interfere with the RO’s decision during an ongoing election.
    • Recognising exceptions for “patent” or “glaring” errors would amount to adding principles not envisaged under Article 329(b).
    • The appropriate remedy available to Ms. Natarajan is to file an election petition before the competent High Court.

    Reliance on Precedent

    • N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer: Established the principle of non-interference during the electoral process.
    • Election-related disputes arising before completion of elections must ordinarily be resolved through election petitions.

    Arguments by Meenakshi Natarajan

    • Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that: The RO committed a “patent error”.
      • Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disclosure is required only in cases where charges have been framed.
      • Allowing her candidature would facilitate, rather than obstruct, free and fair elections.

    Counter Arguments

    • Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that:
      • The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
      • Therefore, an Article 32 petition is not maintainable.
    • The Election Commission of India contended that:
      • All pending criminal proceedings must be disclosed, irrespective of the stage of the case.
      • The proper remedy is an election petition.

    Court’s Clarification

    • The dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice any election petition that Ms. Natarajan may file before the concerned High Court.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Article 329(b): Election disputes can be challenged only through election petitions.
    • Article 32: Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
    • Article 226: High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
    • Section 33A, Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
    • Form 26: Affidavit containing details relating to assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, and criminal cases.
    • Returning Officer (RO): Scrutinises nomination papers and conducts the election process.

  • The ordinance question before the SC

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court recently witnessed the swearing-in of five new judges after a Presidential Ordinance increased its sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges. While two appointments filled pre-existing vacancies, three judges were appointed to posts that exist solely because of the Ordinance.

    How has the Ordinance altered the composition of the Supreme Court?

    1. Presidential Ordinance: Increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 judges to 38 judges.
    2. Five New Appointments: Five judges were sworn in following the Ordinance.
    3. Existing Vacancies: Two appointments filled already existing lawful vacancies.
    4. Ordinance-Created Posts: Three appointments were made against posts created solely through the Ordinance.
    5. Temporary Basis: The additional posts continue only so long as the Ordinance remains operational or is replaced by legislation.
    6. Constitutional Provision: Article 124 leaves determination of the number of Supreme Court judges to Parliament.

    Why does the issue raise concerns regarding judicial independence?

    1. Security of Tenure: Judicial independence requires judges to occupy constitutionally secure offices free from executive discretion.
    2. Executive Dependence: Ordinance-created positions remain dependent upon the executive’s temporary legislative action.
    3. Institutional Perception: Independence includes not merely actual autonomy but also the appearance of autonomy from political branches.
    4. Temporary Offices: Judges occupying posts that may disappear if the Ordinance lapses could create perceptions of institutional dependence.
    5. Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial independence forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be diluted indirectly.

    How does the controversy relate to the NJAC judgment and judicial primacy?

    1. NJAC Judgment (2015): Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    2. Parliamentary Support: The amendment was passed by 367 votes to 1 in the Lok Sabha and ratified by States.
    3. Composition of NJAC: Included the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
    4. Veto Provision: Any two members could veto a recommendation.
    5. Judicial Concern: The Court held that this arrangement undermined judicial primacy in appointments.
    6. Present Contradiction: Critics argue that accepting appointments against Ordinance-created posts appears inconsistent with the Court’s earlier insistence on institutional independence.

    Why is the use of Ordinances controversial in constitutional governance?

    1. Article 123 Power: Enables the President to promulgate Ordinances when Parliament is not in session.
    2. Temporary Nature: Ordinances cease to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved.
    3. Executive Withdrawal: Ordinances may be withdrawn before parliamentary approval.
    4. Democratic Concern: Frequent reliance on Ordinances may bypass normal legislative scrutiny.
    5. Institutional Stability: Temporary laws may create uncertainty in long-term institutional arrangements such as judicial appointments.

    What has the Supreme Court previously held regarding Ordinance-making powers?

    1. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986): Held that repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances amounts to a fraud on the Constitution.
    2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): Seven-judge Bench ruled that Ordinance-making cannot become a parallel source of legislation.
    3. Legislative Supremacy: Ordinances are intended as exceptional measures, not substitutes for parliamentary law-making.
    4. Constitutional Morality: Executive convenience cannot replace legislative deliberation.

    What legal uncertainties arise if the Ordinance lapses?

    1. Reversion of Strength: Supreme Court strength would revert from 38 to 34 judges.
    2. Status of Judges: Questions may arise regarding judges appointed against Ordinance-created posts.
    3. Unsettled Position: No direct precedent exists concerning judges appointed to judicial offices that cease due to lapse of an Ordinance.
    4. De Facto Doctrine: Judicial acts may continue to remain valid under the doctrine affirmed in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1980).
    5. Institutional Litigation: Potential legal challenges may emerge regarding continuation of such appointments.

    How has the Collegium’s decision to recommend appointments against Ordinance-created judicial posts generated constitutional concerns?

    1. Anticipated Vacancies: Forthcoming retirements are expected to create regular vacancies in the Court.
    2. Possible Regularisation: Some Ordinance-appointed judges may subsequently occupy these permanent posts.
    3. Continuing Uncertainty: At least one appointment remains dependent on the validity of the Ordinance.
    4. Expectation of Ratification: The decision assumes Parliament will replace the Ordinance with legislation.
    5. Balancing Priorities: The Collegium sought to address judicial vacancies while relying on future legal regularisation.

    Does judicial independence require more than formal constitutional safeguards?

    1. Substantive Independence: Independence is not merely the legal authority to disagree with the executive.
    2. Perception of Neutrality: Courts must remain visibly detached from political dependence.
    3. Institutional Confidence: Public trust depends on the judiciary appearing free from executive patronage.
    4. Constitutional Culture: Independence requires an instinctive separation from executive influence, not merely procedural safeguards.
    5. Separation of Powers: Long-term legitimacy rests on maintaining clear constitutional boundaries among institutions.

    Conclusion

    The controversy is less about the competence of the appointed judges and more about the constitutional method through which their offices were created. The episode highlights the tension between addressing judicial vacancies and preserving judicial independence. A constitutional democracy requires not only an independent judiciary but also institutional arrangements that are visibly free from executive dependence and temporary political contingencies.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ examines judicial independence and the constitutional principles governing appointments to the higher judiciary. The article questions whether appointments to Ordinance-created Supreme Court posts are consistent with the judiciary’s insistence on institutional independence reflected in the NJAC judgment.