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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • On Constitution Day, more people-friendly laws

    Simplifying the law for the citizens of India

    Central idea

    The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is actively simplifying legal language to promote “Access to Justice,” making legal texts more understandable for every citizen. This strategic initiative, aligned with constitutional principles, addresses historical ambiguities and leverages technology to enhance accessibility, contributing to global legal recognition and fostering a transformative journey toward inclusive justice.

    Key Highlights:

    • Legal Language Simplification: The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is undertaking a mission to simplify legal language, aligning with the vision of “Access to Justice” and aiming to make legal texts more accessible to the common citizen.
    • Constitutional Principle: The initiative reflects the constitutional principle that legal language should be understandable to every citizen, emphasizing the importance of ensuring citizens comprehend their rights and responsibilities.
    • Correction of Ambiguities: The government is addressing historical ambiguities in legal language, such as those in Sections 213 and 214 of the IPC, to enhance legal precision and effective enforcement, eliminating potential loopholes.
    • Global Recognition: The government’s commitment to simplifying legal language has gained international recognition, positioning India as a forward-thinking adopter of progressive measures for legal accessibility.
    • Digital Transformation: The simplification efforts align with the Digital India campaign, leveraging technology to enhance accessibility, with online platforms and digital resources making legal information more readily available.

    Key Challenges:

    • Historical Complexities: Addressing historical intricacies in legal language poses a challenge, requiring thorough examination and correction of ambiguities that have persisted over time.
    • Public Engagement: While seeking public input in the simplification process is a positive step, ensuring effective public engagement and capturing diverse perspectives can be challenging.

    Key Phrases:

    • Access to Justice: The overarching vision guiding the simplification initiative, aiming to remove barriers of legal complexity that hinder the common citizen’s understanding of legal texts.
    • Legal Empowerment: The goal of simplification extends beyond language, aiming to empower citizens with legal knowledge, fostering a sense of legal empowerment among the diverse population.

    Key Quotes:

    • “We must see that the constitution is not only passed by the Constituent Assembly but that it is also worked by the common people of the country.” – B R Ambedkar
    • “The government envisions a legal landscape where language is not a barrier but a bridge to justice.”

    Critical Analysis:

    • The reduction in legal disputes due to misunderstandings and misinterpretations underscores the positive impact of the simplification initiatives in fostering a clearer legal framework.

    Way Forward:

    • Continue the integration of plain language drafting principles into legal education to nurture a generation of legal professionals capable of navigating legal intricacies with clarity and precision.
    • Sustain efforts to engage the public in the simplification process, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered for comprehensive legal accessibility.
    • Monitor and evaluate the impact of simplification on reducing legal disputes and enhancing India’s global economic competitiveness.
    • Explore additional measures, such as comprehensive glossaries in multiple languages, to further enhance the understanding of legal language among citizens.

  • It’s time to revamp the structure of the Supreme Court

    Constitution Bench of Supreme Court

    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.

  • Does the Indian Judiciary have a ‘Patriarchy Problem’?

    Central Idea

    • India’s judiciary has long grappled with gender disparity, and the recent passing of Justice Fathima Beevi, the country’s first female Supreme Court judge, has brought attention to this issue.
    • Despite incremental progress, women continue to be underrepresented in both the Supreme Court and High Courts, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform.

    About Justice Fathima Beevi

    • Justice Fathima Beevi, India’s first woman Supreme Court judge, passed away at the age of 96 in Kollam, Kerala.
    • She made history as the first Muslim woman judge of the Supreme Court, as well as the first woman Supreme Court Justice in Asia.

    Gender Disparity in Indian Judiciary

    [A] Supreme Court

    • Current Scenario: Of the 34 incumbent Supreme Court justices, only three are women: Justices Hima Kohli, Bela Trivedi, and BV Nagarathna.
    • Historical Perspective: India has had a total of 11 women judges in the Supreme Court’s history, since Justice Beevi’s appointment in 1989.
    • Low Representation: This translates to approximately 4% representation of women judges out of a total of 268 judges in the apex court’s history.
    • Recent Appointments: The current collegium, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has made 14 appointments but is yet to appoint a woman judge to the Supreme Court.

    [B] High Court

    • High Court Scenario: As of March 2022, India has 25 high courts with 1,114 sanctioned judge positions.
    • Working Judges: However, only 785 judges are currently working, with 329 positions remaining vacant.
    • Female Judges: Out of the working judges, only 107 are women, constituting 13% of the total.
    • Women Chief Justices: Only one of the country’s 25 high courts currently has a woman chief justice.

    Efforts to Address Gender Disparity

    • Legal Perspective: The Union Law Minister stated that the Constitution’s Articles 124, 217, and 224 do not provide for caste or class-based reservations in higher judiciary appointments.
    • Recommendation for Diversity: Nevertheless, the Centre encouraged high court chief justices to consider suitable candidates who are women, minorities, scheduled castes, or tribes to ensure social diversity in the appointment process.

    Challenges in Lower Judiciary and District Courts

    • Higher Representation: Women constitute approximately 27% of judges in the lower judiciary, but gender disparities persist in higher appointments such as district judges and high courts.
    • Regional Disparities: A study revealed that only a few smaller states like Goa, Meghalaya, and Sikkim had over 60% women judges, while others remained below 40%.
    • Reservation: Some states have introduced quotas for women in the lower judiciary, providing between 30% and 35% reservation for direct appointments.

    Way forward

    • In April 2021, Chief Justice SA Bobde emphasized that capable candidates were required for greater women representation, rather than an attitudinal change.
    • His statement sparked controversy as female advocates challenged the assumption that women refused judgeships solely due to domestic responsibilities.
    • Advocates argued that men also decline judgeships for various reasons without hindering their appointment.

    Conclusion

    • The gender disparity in India’s judiciary remains a persistent challenge, with slow progress towards equal representation.
    • It is imperative to address this issue comprehensively, from the highest courts to the lower judiciary, by promoting diversity and equal opportunities, ultimately strengthening the justice system and upholding gender equality.

  • President bats for All India Judicial Service (AIJS)  

    Central Idea

    • On Constitution Day, President emphasized the need for an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) to reflect India’s diverse fabric in the judiciary.
    • Designed to streamline the recruitment process for judges, particularly at the levels of additional district judges and district judges across all states, the AIJS concept has been the subject of longstanding debate and contention within legal circles.

    All India Judicial Service (AIJS): Overview

    • Objective: To select and nurture talented individuals nationwide, ensuring representation from underrepresented social groups.
    • Current Recruitment: Under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, states manage district judge appointments. State Public Service Commissions conduct recruitment, supervised by High Courts.
    • Rationale: AIJS aims to enhance judicial efficiency, standardize compensation, expedite recruitment, and ensure uniform training.

    Historical Context

    • 1958: The Law Commission first proposed a centralized judicial service.
    • 1978: The Law Commission revisited the idea amid concerns about delays and case backlogs.
    • 2006: A Parliamentary Committee supported a pan-Indian judicial service, drafting a bill.

    Judiciary’s Stance

    • 1992: The Supreme Court directed the Centre to establish AIJS (All India Judges’ Assam vs. Union of India case).
    • 1993: The Court permitted the Centre to initiate AIJS independently.
    • 2017: The Supreme Court suggested a “Central Selection Mechanism” for district judge appointments.

    Necessity of AIJS

    • Challenges: The lower judiciary faces about 5400 vacancies and a backlog of 2.78 crore cases.
    • Quality Concerns: The declining quality of judicial officers necessitates high-caliber recruitment.
    • Financial Incentives: State services often fail to attract top talent due to lower salaries.
    • Training and Subjectivity: State-run institutions lack adequate training resources; current appointments are marred by subjectivity and nepotism.

    Criticism and Concerns

    • Federalism: AIJS is seen as infringing on states’ powers.
    • Language and Representation: Centralized recruitment might impact the use of regional languages.
    • Equality and Education: A national exam could disadvantage less privileged candidates; law education standards are inconsistent.
    • Structural Issues: AIJS may not address systemic problems like low pay and inadequate infrastructure.
    • Bureaucratization: Centralizing recruitment doesn’t inherently guarantee efficiency.

    Government’s Motivation

    • Business Environment: Reforming the lower judiciary is aligned with improving India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking.
    • Dispute Resolution: Efficient dispute resolution is crucial for business rankings.
    • IAS Inspiration: The government views the IAS system as a model for enhancing judicial services.

    Way Forward

    Niti Aayog’s ‘Strategy for New India @75’ report recommends:

    • Examination: An all-India judicial services exam to maintain high standards.
    • Technology: Implementing video-conferencing to expedite justice and reduce logistical issues.
    • Independence: AIJS cadre should report to the Chief Justice in each High Court to preserve judicial independence.

  • Revamping the criminal justice system to fit the bill

    Central idea

    The government wants to change some important laws in India, causing questions about making them more modern and fair. The study says that the government should be very careful when making these changes to ensure that the new laws are fair and work well. The main idea is to check and fix the laws to make sure they are right for today.

    Core Laws Replacement Bills
    Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill
    Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill
    Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872 Bharatiya Sakshya Bill

     

    Definitions and drafting of new bills

    • Mental Illness Exception in IPC Replacement Bill: The new Bill, replacing the IPC, introduces a provision exempting individuals suffering from mental illness from being considered offenders. This marks a shift from the previous term “unsound mind.”
    • Definition Alignment with Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: The definition of mental illness in the Bill aligns with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, aiming to provide medical treatment to those with mental illness. Notably, mental retardation or incomplete development is excluded, while abuse of alcohol or drugs is included.
    • Differential Exemption Based on Condition: The new Bill grants full exemption to individuals addicted to alcohol or drugs under the mental illness exception. However, those unable to understand the consequences of their actions due to mental retardation are not granted the same exemption.
    • Retention of Obsolete Illustrations: The existing laws, including the IPC, incorporated illustrations from daily life to explain their provisions. Despite some illustrations becoming obsolete, they have been retained in the new Bill.
    • Need for Modernization in Illustrations: Recognizing the changing times, there is a suggestion that the illustrations, such as people riding chariots, firing cannons, and being carried on palanquins, should be updated to reflect contemporary events from modern life. This aims to enhance the relevance and clarity of the legal framework.

    Seven issues related to modernising jurisprudence

    • Exclusion of Civil Law: The Bills are questioned on whether they appropriately exclude civil law issues, despite the CrPC’s provisions for post-divorce maintenance and compounding certain offences. The new Bills retain these provisions.
    • Reformative vs. Punitive System: The Bills’ approach towards a reformative system is examined with the introduction of community service as a punishment. However, non-compoundability of minor offences, leading to trial and conviction, raises concerns.
    • Integration of Public Order and Prosecution: The CrPC’s structure, encompassing public order and criminal prosecution, is retained in the new Bills, prompting consideration on whether this integration is appropriate.
    • Codification of Supreme Court Directions: The Bills are critiqued for not codifying various Supreme Court directions, excluding procedures for mercy petitions, thus creating potential gaps in the legal framework.
    • Consistency of Implementation: The Bills’ retention of wide sentencing ranges for certain offences is examined for its impact on ensuring consistency in implementing penalties across cases.
    • Age Provisions for Modern Norms: The need for updating age provisions in line with modern norms is questioned, specifically exploring whether age thresholds for criminal responsibility should be raised.
    • Update of Gender-Related Offences: The Bills align with Supreme Court judgments by removing Section 377 and addressing gender-related offences. However, the omission of making marital rape an offence, despite recommendations from the Justice Verma Committee in 2013, is noted.

    Key Phrases from article to fetch good marks in mains:

    • Legislative Overhaul
    • Reformative vs. Punitive
    • Public Order and Prosecution
    • Supreme Court Directions
    • Consistency of Implementation
    • Gender Offenses

    Critical analysis

    The bills offer a legislative overhaul, but challenges arise in areas of overlap with special laws, gaps in Supreme Court directions, and concerns about consistency in sentencing. The debate over reformative vs. punitive systems, age thresholds, and gender offenses adds complexity to the proposed changes.

    Key Data:

    • IPC Enacted: 1860
    • CrPC Enacted: 1973
    • IEA Enacted: 1872
    • Legal Metrology Act, 2009
    • Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
    • Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

    Overlap of new laws with special laws

    • Historical Context of IPC: The IPC, established in 1860, serves as the primary legislation outlining offenses and penalties, shaping the foundation of the Indian legal system.
    • Issue of Duplication and Inconsistency:Concerns arise as the IPC, along with the proposed replacement Bill, continues to specify certain offenses and penalties, leading to duplication and inconsistencies across various laws.
    • Addressing Specific Overlaps: Positive instances of addressing overlaps are noted, such as the removal of IPC provisions related to weights and measures by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
    • Persistent Overlaps in New Bill: Despite some adjustments, the new Bill, like the IPC, exhibits overlaps with several other Acts, including those related to food adulteration, sale of adulterated drugs, bonded labor, and rash driving.
    • Abortion as an Offense: Noteworthy is the retention of abortion as an offense in the new Bill, even though the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits it under specific conditions.
    • Maintenance of a Parent Provision: The Bill replacing CrPC maintains the provision for the maintenance of a parent, despite a specific Act passed in 2007 addressing this matter. This raises questions about consistency and necessity.

    Way Forward:

    • Parliament needs to carefully examine the bills to ensure fairness, justice, and efficiency in the criminal justice system.
    • Address concerns related to overlap with special laws, sentencing ranges, and gaps in codifying Supreme Court directions.
    • Consider updating outdated illustrations and ensuring clarity in definitions for a modernized legal framework.
    • Deliberate on the debate over reformative vs. punitive systems, age thresholds, and gender-related offenses for a comprehensive legislative approach.

  • Speedy Disposal of Cases against Lawmakers: What SC Guidelines on the matter say

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure the quick resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) across India.
    • These guidelines aim to address the long-pending issue of lawmakers facing criminal charges.

    Background

    • Advocate’s Plea: These directions were issued in response to a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in August 2016.
    • Key Demands: Upadhyay’s plea sought the swift handling of cases involving legislators and a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, including those currently in office, instead of the existing six-year disqualification mentioned in Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

    Understanding the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951

    • Purpose: The RPA, 1951, introduced by Dr. BR Ambedkar, governs the conduct of elections to India’s parliament and state legislatures.
    • Content: It covers various aspects, including qualifications and disqualifications for membership, corrupt practices, and offenses related to elections.
    • Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals specifically with the disqualification of legislators on conviction for certain offenses, such as promoting enmity between groups, bribery, undue influence, and offenses related to hoarding, profiteering, or adulteration of food or drugs.
    • Section 8(3): This subsection states that a person convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and continue to be disqualified for an additional six years after release. In essence, it imposes a six-year disqualification on individuals convicted of offenses with a minimum two-year prison sentence.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • Guidelines for Speedy Disposal: The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, laid down guidelines for the prompt resolution of pending criminal cases against lawmakers.
    • Suo Motu Cases: High courts across India are directed to establish a “special bench” to oversee criminal cases involving legislators. High courts can also register such cases on their own initiative.
    • Flexible Approach: The court allows the chief justices of high courts to hear these cases or designate specific benches for this purpose. These cases may be listed regularly if needed, and the special bench can seek assistance from the advocate general or prosecutor.
    • High Court Role: To efficiently manage these cases, the Supreme Court leaves it to high courts to devise suitable measures.
    • Priority Cases: The court emphasizes prioritizing cases against lawmakers that carry the possibility of death or life imprisonment. Cases with sentences of five years or more are also given priority.
    • HC’s Authority: High courts are empowered to issue similar orders and directions for effective case disposal. They can involve the Principal District and Sessions Judge in allocating cases to appropriate courts.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines are aimed at expediting the resolution of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs and ensuring justice is served promptly.
    • While these guidelines address the issue of speedy disposal, the larger question of replacing the six-year disqualification with a lifetime ban remains open for future consideration.

  • Move towards e-FIR, but with caution

    e-FIR

    Central idea

    The Law Commission proposes e-FIR registration for unknown accused in cognizable offenses, combining electronic submission with physical signing within three days. Despite ensuring swift crime registration, concerns arise over limited efficacy, emphasizing the importance of human intervention, especially in cases requiring immediate police involvement. The article suggests exploring e-authentication techniques for enhanced verification.

    What is e-FIR?

    • Definition: Digital system for reporting crimes to the police.
    • Process: Information submitted online through a national portal. Complainant required to physically sign the report within a specified timeframe (usually three days).
    • Objective: Streamline crime registration with initial electronic submission.

    Key provisions of law commissions report

    • e-FIR Recommendation: Proposal for e-FIR registration in all cognizable offenses with unknown accused. Verification through OTP and Aadhaar ID proof suggested by the Law Commission.
    • Verification Process: Complainant verification through OTP for authenticity. Aadhaar ID proof mandated to confirm the complainant’s identity.
    • Information Deletion: Automatic deletion of unverified information within two weeks. Complainant’s failure to sign the e-FIR within the prescribed time leads to deletion.
    • Timeframe for Physical Signing: Complainants given three days to physically sign the e-FIR for formal registration. Failure to sign within the stipulated time results in non-registration.
    • Human Intervention: The article emphasizes the importance of human interaction in certain cases, suggesting that electronic registration may be suitable only for offenses where immediate police interaction is not crucial.

    What are cognisable offences?

    • Cognizable Offenses Definition: Offenses for which police can make an arrest without a warrant. Immediate police action is permissible upon receiving information or a complaint.
    • Serious Nature: Generally involves more severe crimes. Examples include murder, robbery, kidnapping, and certain types of fraud.
    • No Court Permission Needed: Law enforcement can initiate an investigation without court authorization. Immediate action can be taken by the police upon learning about the offense.
    • Jurisdictional Variations: Classification as cognizable or non-cognizable may vary in different legal systems. The severity and nature of offenses determine their categorization.

    Challenges:

    • Limited Efficacy: The concept of e-FIR relies on obtaining information electronically but requires physical signatures within a prescribed time, limiting the effectiveness of the online process.
    • Lack of Discussion: The article notes that the Law Commission did not discuss models adopted by states currently lodging e-FIRs, leading to potential gaps in understanding the practical implementation.

    Key Phrases:

    • Cognizable Offenses: Offenses for which police can make an arrest without a warrant.
    • E-authentication Technique: The use of digital signatures or e-authentication techniques, not extensively discussed in the Law Commission’s recommendations.
    • Human Interaction: Highlighted as crucial, especially in cases like kidnapping, where immediate police involvement is essential for both medical examinations and crime scene visits.

    Key Facts/Data:

    • Verification Methods: OTP and Aadhaar are suggested as methods for verifying the complainant’s identity in the e-FIR process.
    • Three-Day Timeframe: Complainants have three days to physically sign the e-FIR; otherwise, the information is automatically deleted from the portal.

    Way Forward:

    • Mandating E-authentication: The article suggests considering the use of e-authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, to enhance the verification process and facilitate immediate e-FIR registration.
    • Clarification on Models: The Law Commission and states should provide clearer insights into the practical models adopted for e-FIR registration, addressing potential gaps in the recommendations.

  • Advocate-on-Record (AoR) in Supreme Court

    advocate

    Central Idea

    • In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), emphasizing that an AoR cannot be a mere “signing authority.”
    • This incident has sparked discussions on the role and significance of AoRs in the Indian legal system.

    Who is an Advocate-on-Record (AoR)?

    • Historical Roots: The AoR system is influenced by British legal practices, distinguishing between barristers who argue cases and solicitors who handle client matters. In India, senior advocates are designated by the Court, akin to barristers, and cannot solicit clients but are briefed by other lawyers, including AoRs.
    • Exclusive Right to File Cases: Only an AoR is authorized to file cases before the Supreme Court of India. They serve as a vital link between litigants and the highest judicial authority in the country.
    • Elite Legal Practitioners: AoRs are a select group of elite lawyers, primarily based in Delhi, whose legal practice predominantly revolves around the Supreme Court. They may also represent clients in other courts.
    • Court of Last Opportunity: The concept behind the AoR system is to ensure that a litigant is represented by a highly qualified lawyer because the Supreme Court is often considered the last resort for legal remedies.

    Becoming an AoR

    • Eligibility Criteria: To qualify as an AoR, an advocate must meet specific criteria set by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
    • Examination: Aspiring AoRs must clear an examination conducted by the Supreme Court, which includes subjects like Practice and Procedure, Drafting, Professional Ethics, and Leading Cases.
    • Training Requirement: Before taking the exam, an advocate must undergo training with a court-approved AoR for at least one year. This training is preceded by a minimum of four years of legal practice.

    Responsibilities and Rules Governing AoRs

    • Geographical Presence: AoRs must maintain an office in Delhi within a 16-kilometer radius of the Supreme Court.
    • Employment of Registered Clerk: Upon registration as an AoR, an undertaking is required to employ a registered clerk within one month.
    • Regulatory Authority: While Section 30 of the Advocates Act grants lawyers the right to practice law nationwide, it explicitly acknowledges the Supreme Court’s authority to establish rules under Article 145 of the Constitution for regulating its own procedure.

     

  • Judicial Perspectives on LGBTQI Marriage and Adoption Issues

    Central Idea

    • In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, deliberated on granting legal status to same-sex marriages.
    • This case has sparked significant interest as it explores the intersection of individual rights and societal norms.

    Judicial Perspectives on Various Issues:

    [A] Fundamental Right to Marry

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Petitioner Argument
    • Marriage is not fundamentally important;
    • It gained significance through state regulation as Civil Union.
    • Marriage’s importance is personal preference and social status.
    • It is necessarily NOT a fundamental right.

     

    [B] Interpretation of Special Marriage Act

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Framing the Issue
    • Cautioned against expansive interpretations;
    • Suggested encroachment on the legislature’s domain.
    • Concurred with the minority view.
    • Emphasized the SMA’s purpose for facilitating civil marriages between heterosexual couples.

     

    [C] Queer Couples’ Right to Adopt a Child

    Issue Minority View (CJI) Majority View
    Discriminatory Regulations
    • Struck down certain CARA regulations, asserting that they do not serve the child’s best interests.
    • Highlighted the discriminatory impact on the queer community based on their sexuality.
    • Acknowledged the discriminatory aspect.
    • But believed legislative action, rather than judicial imposition, should bring about this change.

     

    [D] Civil Unions for Queer Couples

    Argument Minority View (CJI Chandrachud) Majority View
    Recognition of Civil Unions
    • Connected the right to form intimate associations with freedom of speech and expression.
    • Proposed that the state should acknowledge various entitlements for such relationships.
    • Disagreed with prescribing a “choice” of civil unions.
    • Suggested that the state should facilitate this choice for those who opt for it.

     Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage reflects a complex interplay of legal, social, and legislative factors.
    • While the minority view leans towards immediate recognition of civil unions and highlights the importance of individual rights, the majority opinion emphasizes the legislative role in bringing about changes in societal norms.
    • The verdict underscores the evolving landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in India and the ongoing dialogue surrounding equal rights and inclusivity.

  • Supreme Court’s Integration with the National Judicial Data Grid

    National Judicial Data Grid

    Central Idea

    • On September 14th, the Supreme Court of India took a monumental stride by incorporating its case data into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

    What is the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)?

    • Comprehensive Repository: NJDG stands as a comprehensive online repository, housing orders, judgments, and case particulars from a vast network of 18,735 District and subordinate Courts and High Courts.
    • Real-time Access: This platform is an integral component of the eCourts Project, providing real-time updates and in-depth data down to the Taluka level.

    Administration of NJDG

    • E-Courts Initiative: NJDG was conceived as part of Phase II of the e-Courts project, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme designed to modernize the Indian judiciary.
    • Collaborative Effort: The National Informatics Centre (NIC) collaborated closely with the in-house software development team of the Computer Cell at the Supreme Court to bring NJDG to fruition.
    • User-Friendly Interface: NJDG boasts an interactive interface and an analytics dashboard, ensuring accessibility for legal professionals and the general public.

    The Power of Data

    • Monitoring and Management: NJDG serves as a potent tool for monitoring and managing case backlogs, ultimately alleviating the burden of pending cases.
    • Supreme Court’s Example: Analyzing data from the Supreme Court in 2023, it reveals a total pendency of 64,854 registered cases, with 5,412 new cases received and 5,033 cases disposed of in the last month. This underscores that the backlog primarily consists of legacy cases, managed at a rate comparable to the annual influx of new cases.
    • Identifying Bottlenecks: NJDG aids in identifying specific bottlenecks in the judicial process. For instance, a surge in land dispute cases in a particular state prompts policymakers to consider strengthening relevant laws.
    • Insights from the Chief Justice: Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that year-wise pendency data indicates the Supreme Court has less than a hundred cases pending from before 2000, allowing the Chief Justice to prioritize the resolution of the oldest cases.
    • Specialized Insights: NJDG also facilitates the generation of insights into specific areas of law. For instance, it links Land Records data from 26 States with NJDG to track land dispute cases effectively.