Subject: Judiciary

Central Idea:

The author highlights the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary, emphasizing the need for unbiased judges and a political system that separates religion from politics. The use of religious sentiments for divisive purposes is criticized, calling for a transparent and merit-based judicial appointment system.

Key Highlights:

• Judicial challenges in handling a growing population and increasing litigations.
• Delayed justice in the Supreme Court, impacting the relevance of decisions.
• Concerns about the quality of judges and perceived ideological alignments in appointments.
• Critique of the current collegium system and its lack of transparency.

Key Challenges:

• Overburdened judiciary with a rising number of cases.
• Delayed justice affecting the effectiveness of legal decisions.
• Perceived ideological biases in judicial appointments.
• Lack of a transparent and merit-oriented system for judge selection.

Key Terms:

• Collegium System: The system of appointing judges through a committee of senior judges.
• Ideological Alignment: Alleged connections between judges and specific political or religious ideologies.
• Judicial Hierarchy: The levels of the judicial system, with the Supreme Court being the highest.

Key Phrases:

• “Bedevilled with challenges”: Describing the complex issues faced by the judiciary.
• “Divide and rule”: Criticizing the use of religious emotions for political manipulation.
• “Seminal issues”: Highlighting the critical issues decided by the Supreme Court.

Key Quotes:

• “India needs judges who deliver justice unconcerned with majoritarian sentiments.”
• “The collegium system has failed us.”
• “For the judiciary to regain its glory, it needs to do more than just decide on cases.”

Key Examples and References:

• Reference to the Chief Justice addressing dormant cases but acknowledging the urgency needed.
• Critique of the appointment of judges based on perceived proximity to political power.

Key Facts and Data:

• Increase in litigants seeking justice due to a burgeoning population.
• Delayed hearings and decisions in the Supreme Court.
• Issues with the current system of appointing judges.

Critical Analysis:

The author criticizes the judiciary’s current state, highlighting issues of delayed justice, ideological biases, and the failure of the collegium system. Emphasis is placed on the need for transparency and merit in the appointment process.

Way Forward:

• Reforming the judicial appointment process to ensure transparency and meritocracy.
• Addressing the backlog of cases to expedite justice delivery.
• Advocating for a political system that separates religion from politics to avoid divisive agendas.

Central idea 

The article critiques the withdrawal and reintroduction of criminal law bills in India, highlighting concerns over civil liberties, overcriminalisation, and expanded police powers. It emphasizes the alarming increase in police custody duration and the absence of a transformative vision in the proposed legislations.

Key Highlights:

• Legislative Changes: The government withdraws and reintroduces criminal law bills, including Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II), and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II), reflecting potential shifts in the criminal justice system.
• Concerns Over State Control: The bills raise concerns about the expansion of state control, overcriminalisation, and enhanced police powers, potentially compromising civil liberties and increasing the risk of police excesses.
• Police Custody Duration: The BNSS proposes a significant increase in the maximum duration of police custody, from 15 days to 60 or 90 days, raising concerns about potential exposure to abuse and coercion.

Key Challenges:

• Risk of Overcriminalisation: The bills introduce broadly worded offenses, especially related to the security of the state, potentially leading to overcriminalisation and ambiguous legal provisions.
• Expanded Police Powers: The BNSS’s expansion of police custody duration, combined with vague offenses, raises concerns about the potential for misuse of power and coercive tactics.
• Lack of Transformative Vision: The bills lack a transformative vision for criminal law and justice, potentially entrenching colonial-era logic and emphasizing state control over citizen liberties.

Key Terms and Phrases:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II): A proposed legislation to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860), reflecting potential changes in criminal law.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II): A bill aimed at replacing the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC, 1973) with potential implications for civil liberties and police powers.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II): Legislation seeking to replace the Indian Evidence Act (IEA, 1872), indicating potential shifts in the criminal justice system.

Key Quotes and Statements:

• “The expansion under the proposed BNSS heightens the risk of exposure to police excesses… a shocking expansion of police powers.”
• “These Bills present a missed opportunity to correct the entrenched injustices of our criminal justice system.”

Key Examples and References:

• Overcriminalisation Concerns: The bills introduce broadly framed offenses, including criminalizing misinformation, raising fears of overcriminalisation and potential misuse.
• Expansion of Police Custody: The BNSS proposes a substantial increase in the duration of police custody, contributing to concerns about potential abuse and coercive practices.

Key Facts and Data:

• Duration of Police Custody: The BNSS proposes expanding the maximum limit of police custody from 15 days to either 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense.

Critical Analysis:

• Missed Opportunity: The bills are criticized for not addressing deep-seated issues in the criminal justice system and potentially entrenching colonial-era logic without a transformative vision.
• Efficiency vs. Fairness: Emphasizes that goals of speedy justice and effective investigation, while important, cannot be achieved without addressing structural barriers and ensuring fairness.

Way Forward:

• Comprehensive Regulatory Ecosystem: Advocates for a regulatory framework ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability, especially in the context of expanded police powers and overcriminalisation.
• Structural Reforms: Emphasizes the need for fundamental transformations in the criminal justice system, addressing issues like judicial vacancies, infrastructure, and scientific validity of forensic methods.

Central idea 

The article discusses the challenge of legislators practicing law, particularly the dual role of legislator-lawyers, raising concerns about potential conflicts and the normalization of political intervention in the judiciary. It criticizes Kapil Sibal’s confrontational approach, citing its impact on judicial independence, and emphasizes the delicate balance needed for an independent judiciary amid intertwining political and legal roles.

Key Highlights:

• Dual Roles of Legislator-Lawyers: Legislators practicing law face a dilemma, mixing politics with the legal profession, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
• Normalization of Political Intervention: Allegations by Kapil Sibal suggest a trend of normalizing political intervention in the judiciary, using claims like “courts being on trial” to influence decisions.
• False Equivalence with Emergency Era: Critique based on a false equivalence between the 1975 Emergency and present times, disregarding the unique historical context and the active role of the judiciary.

Key Challenges:

• Political-legal Nexus: The intertwining of political and legal roles, especially in the case of legislator-lawyers, poses challenges to the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
• Confrontational Criticism: Sibal’s confrontational criticism, accusing the judiciary of undergoing a radical shift under external pressures, raises concerns about the impact on public trust and institutional respect.
• Undermining Judicial Independence: Multi-layered actions that undermine judicial independence can erode public faith in legal institutions and potentially influence future verdicts.

Key Terms and Phrases:

• Constitutional Amendments: Reference to the numerous constitutional amendments during the 1975 Emergency.
• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s expanded role in reviewing legislation on grounds like constitutional morality, manifest arbitrariness, and transformative constitutionalism.
• Impeachment Proceedings: Mention of the threat of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dipak Misra, perceived as an attempt to pressure the judiciary.

Key Quotes:

• “Courts being on trial” – Described as a sophisticated tool to easily deride any unfavorable decision and question the judiciary’s independence.
• “Institutional sabotage” – Sibal’s comments on institutional sabotage are deemed wildly inaccurate and speculative.

Key Statements:

• False Equivalence Critique: The critique based on a false equivalence between the 1975 Emergency and present times, emphasizing the active role of the judiciary in the current era.
• Confrontational Criticism Impact: Sibal’s confrontational criticism may have a chilling effect on the judiciary’s functioning, potentially influencing future verdicts and legal processes.
• Delicate Balance: Emphasizing the need to respect the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence, especially for legislator-lawyers.

Key Examples and References:

• Defections Cases: Reference to recent Supreme Court decisions concerning defections impacting public trust in the democratic process.
• Impeachment Proceedings Threat: Mention of the perceived attempt to pressure the judiciary through the threat of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
• Sibal’s Role in Criticism: Highlighting Sibal’s consistent and atypical criticism of Supreme Court verdicts, raising questions about his dual roles.

Key Facts and Data:

• Supreme Court’s Intrusive Role: Acknowledgment of the Supreme Court’s more intrusive role in the past decade, impacting the role of the democratically elected legislature.
• Sibal’s Political Transition: Recognition of Kapil Sibal’s transition from a Congress leader to seeking political space, influencing his views and legal perspectives.

Critical Analysis:

• Intertwining Roles Challenge: The intertwining of political and legal roles challenges the delicate balance needed for an independent judiciary and erodes public trust.
• Ethical Standards for Politician-Lawyers: The need for politicians, especially legislator-lawyers, to adhere to ethical standards and maintain the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence.
• Impact on Democracy: Actions perceived as undermining judicial independence can have a profound impact on democracy, influencing public perception and institutional respect.

Way Forward:

• Respect for Judicial Independence: Emphasizing the crucial need to respect the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence to safeguard the credibility of legal institutions.
• Ethical Considerations: Encouraging politicians, especially those with legal acumen, to consider ethical standards in their dual roles to avoid eroding public faith in the judiciary.
• Public Perception Management: Considering how opinions are presented to manage public perception and maintain institutional respect, ensuring a constructive dialogue between the legal and political spheres.

Central idea

The article discusses the challenges faced by the Supreme Court of India, the historical proposals for structural changes, and the recent proposal to create Constitution Benches as a permanent feature. It explores the need for regional benches to alleviate the overwhelming caseload and enhance the court’s efficiency, considering historical recommendations and current demands for reform.

Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court:

• Original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions under the Constitution.
• Functions as a Constitutional Court and Court of Appeal.

Composition of Constitution Benches:

• Typically comprise five, seven, or nine judges.
• Deliberate on issues related to constitutional law.
• Article 145(3) mandates a minimum of five judges for substantial constitutional questions.

Broad Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

• Hears cases in Division Benches (two judges) or full Benches (three judges).
• Addresses diverse topics, from film prohibitions to allegations against public officials.
• Notable instances of entertaining frivolous public interest litigations.

Current Caseload and Need for Structural Change:

• 79,813 pending cases before 34 judges, prompting calls for structural reforms.
• CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s recent announcement on establishing varied-strength Constitution Benches permanently.

Historical Proposals for Structural Change:

• Tenth Law Commission (1984) proposed splitting the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Legal Divisions.
• Eleventh Law Commission (1988) reiterated the need for division, aiming at wider justice availability.
• Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986) expressed the “desirability” of a National Court of Appeal.
• 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended regional benches for non-constitutional issues.

Colonial Legacy and Evolution of the Supreme Court:

• Three Supreme Courts during colonial times (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras).
• Indian High Courts Act of 1861 replaced Supreme Courts with High Courts.
• Government of India Act, 1935, created the Federal Court of India.
• The Supreme Court, established on January 28, 1950, under Article 124 of the Constitution.

Increasing Judges and Overburdened Court:

• Evolution of the Supreme Court from eight judges in 1950 to 34 in 2019.
• Overburdened court issuing around 8-10 decisions yearly through Constitution Benches.
• Only four out of 1,263 decisions in 2022 from Constitution Benches.

Critical Analysis:

• Overburdened Judiciary: High number of pending cases (79,813) indicates the burden on the Supreme Court. The overwhelming workload affects the efficiency of the court in delivering timely justice.
• Historical Proposals: Historical proposals, like the Tenth Law Commission’s suggestion in 1984, proposed splitting the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Legal Divisions.The aim was to make justice more accessible and reduce litigants’ fees.
• Regional Benches Proposal: The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended establishing regional benches to hear non-constitutional issues. The proposal aimed to decentralize workload and allow the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional matters.
• Historical Background: Evolution of the Supreme Court from colonial times with the creation of regional Supreme Courts. Transformation from three Supreme Courts (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) to the current centralized structure.

Key Examples and References:

• Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986) suggested establishing a National Court of Appeal.
• The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended regional benches.

Key Facts:

• The Court sits in benches of varying sizes, as determined by the Registry on the directions of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who is the Master of the Roster
• The Supreme Court was founded on January 28, 1950, under Article 124 of the Constitution.
• Workforce increased from 8 judges in 1950 to 34 judges in 2019 due to rising caseload.

Way Forward:

• Suggestion to split the Supreme Court into a Final Court of Appeal and a permanent Constitution Bench.
• A Constitution Bench (V. Vasanthkumar v. H.C. Bhatia) analyzing and proposing measures to protect citizens’ access to the Supreme Court.
• Opportunity to address structural gaps by designating appeal benches as regional benches under CJI’s guidance.