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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • 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.

  • Relevance of Constitution Benches in the Supreme Court

    Constitution Bench

    Central Idea

    • CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, took a moment to address a lawyer’s misconceptions regarding the purpose of Constitution Benches in the Supreme Court.

    What is a Constitution Bench?

    • The constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India.
    • The Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and refer cases to it.

    Constitution benches are set up when the following circumstances exist:

    1. Interpretation of the Constitution: Article 145(3) provides for the constitution of at least five judges of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution of India.
    2. President of India seeking SC’s opinion: When the President has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on a question of fact or law under Article 143 of the Constitution. Article 143 of the Constitution provides for Advisory jurisdiction to the SC. As per the provision, the President has the power to address questions to the apex Court, which he deems important for public welfare.
    3. Conflicting Judgments: When two or more three-judge benches of the Supreme Court have delivered conflicting judgments on the same point of law, necessitating a definite understanding and interpretation of the law by a larger bench.
    • The Constitution benches are set up on ad hoc basis as and when the above-mentioned conditions exist.
    • Constitution benches have decided many of India’s best-known and most important Supreme Court cases, such as:
    1. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 (Preventive detention)
    2. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 1972 (OBC reservations) etc.
    3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (Basic structure doctrine) and

    Critique and Response

    • A Lawyer’s Concern: A litigant had expressed concerns in a letter to the top court’s Secretary General, suggesting that the court was investing excessive time in Constitution Bench cases, neglecting public interest petitions that directly impact common individuals.
    • Court’s Defense: CJI challenged this notion, emphasizing that not all Constitution Bench cases revolve around the interpretation of the Constitution.
    • Examples Matter: He provided an example of a recent Constitution Bench case concerning whether a person holding a light motor vehicle license can operate a commercial vehicle. This directly affects the livelihood of countless drivers across the nation.

    CJI Dispelling Misconceptions

    • Not Just “Fancy” Matters: CJI clarified that the Supreme Court doesn’t convene Constitution Benches solely for matters detached from the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens.
    • Voice of the Nation: He highlighted instances like the Article 370 abrogation challenge, where the court engaged with the “voice of the nation.” Stakeholders from the Valley actively participated in extensive hearings.

    Arguments against such hearings

    • People’s Perspective: The Advocate clarified that his objection wasn’t against the court hearing Constitution Bench matters but rather the court’s engagement in public policy issues without adequate public input.
    • Court’s Response: CJI countered this argument, citing the Article 370 case as an example where groups of individual interveners from the Valley actively presented their perspectives to the court.

    Conclusion

    • Balancing Act: CJI’s remarks underscore the delicate balance between addressing constitutional matters and matters of public interest, highlighting that both have their place in the Supreme Court’s agenda.
    • Inclusive Justice: The exchange between the Chief Justice and the lawyer reflects the importance of ensuring that the court’s decisions consider the perspectives and concerns of the broader public, especially in cases with significant societal impact.

  • Deconstructing Gender Stereotypes: The Supreme Court’s Handbook

    gender

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step to challenge outdated ideas, especially those affecting women, by releasing a special guide.
    • This guide introduces new words for lawyers and judges to use in court, aiming to fight harmful beliefs.

    Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes

    • The handbook provides a list of biased words and suggests better alternatives for legal documents.
    • Its main aim is to provide legal experts with the means to “identify, understand, and challenge stereotypes about women.”
    • It includes a list of terms that promote gender bias and offers alternative, fairer terms to be used in legal documents.

    Objective and Scope of the Handbook

    • Challenging Old Beliefs: The Supreme Court’s initiative aims to discard old-fashioned and harmful stereotypes, particularly those related to women, through the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes.’
    • CJI’s Vision: The handbook is introduced by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who explains its purpose: to help legal professionals recognize and counter gender-based stereotypes.
    • Language Transformation: The handbook includes a glossary of terms that contribute to gender bias and suggests better alternatives to be used in legal writings.

    Why such a move?

    [A] Language inflicting Stereotypes

    • The handbook points out terms in legal language that promote gender bias and provides suggestions for change.
    • Examples of Change: Instead of using “adulteress,” the handbook recommends using “Woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage” to avoid disrespectful language.
    • Removing Biases: The handbook encourages using simple terms like “woman” and “wife” instead of prefixes like “chaste” or “obedient.”
    • Using Neutral Language: Instead of negatively using “effeminate,” the handbook suggests using neutral terms like “confident” or “responsible.”

    [B] Avoiding labelling

    • Empowering Language: The handbook suggests using “survivor” or “victim” to describe individuals affected by sexual violence.
    • Respecting Preferences: The choice between “survivor” and “victim” should be based on the individual’s preference.

    [C] Conscious Reporting of Cases

    • Separating Attire and Consent: The handbook emphasizes that a person’s clothing should never excuse unwanted touching; consent remains essential.
    • Breaking Stereotypes: The handbook rejects the idea that delayed reporting of sexual assault means it didn’t happen.
    • Encouraging Reporting: The handbook acknowledges the bravery required to report sexual offenses due to societal pressures.

    Negative Effects of Gender Stereotypes

    • Widespread Impact: Gender stereotypes lead to exclusion and prejudice in workplaces, schools, and public places.
    • Education Example: The handbook illustrates how stereotypes affect students from marginalized communities, adding stress during exams.
    • Government Data: Minister Subhas Sarkar’s data on dropout rates among marginalized students is shared as an example.

    Legal reforms rebutting Gender Stereotypes

    • Cases for Equality: The Supreme Court points out cases that reject stereotypes, like Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, which struck down the “adultery” law.
    • Example Rulings: The court’s decisions in cases like the State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai and the State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh are explained.

    Conclusion

    • By offering alternatives to outdated and biased language, the handbook aims not only to reshape legal discussions but also societal viewpoints.
    • Its potential impact is anticipated to extend beyond legal matters, influencing everyday perspectives and contributing to a more equitable society.

  • SC Collegium proposes new CJs to 7 High Courts

    collegium

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, has recommended new Chief Justices for seven major High Courts in India.
    • The recommendations focus on criteria such as seniority, regional representation, and gender diversity.

    What is Collegium System?

    • The Collegium of judges is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • It does not figure in the Constitution, which says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President and speaks of a process of consultation.
    • In effect, it is a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.
    • After some judges were superseded in the appointment of the CJI in the 1970s, and attempts made subsequently to effect a mass transfer of High Court judges across the country.
    • Hence there was a perception that the independence of the judiciary was under threat. This resulted in a series of cases over the years.

    Evolution: The Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
    • However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    Functions of the Collegium

    (1) Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and other Supreme Court judges.
    • The outgoing CJI recommends his successor, and the appointment is typically made based on seniority, following the controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the Prime Minister, who then advises the President on the appointment.

    (2) Appointment of Other SC Judges

    • The proposal for appointing other judges to the Supreme Court is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults other members of the Collegium, as well as the senior-most judge from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The opinions of the consultees must be recorded in writing and included in the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister for the President’s advice.

    (3) Appointment of High Court Judges

    • Chief Justices (CJs) of High Courts are appointed based on the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective states. The Collegium makes the final decision on their elevation.
    • The appointment of High Court judges is recommended by a Collegium consisting of the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The Chief Justice of the High Court concerned initiates the proposal in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is then sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to forward the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    (4) Transfer Recommendations by the Collegium

    • The Collegium is also responsible for recommending transfers of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution allows for the transfer of judges from one High Court to another.
    • When a Chief Justice is transferred, a replacement must be simultaneously appointed for the concerned High Court. An acting Chief Justice can be appointed for a maximum of one month.
    • In transfer matters, the CJI’s opinion is determinative, and the consent of the judge being transferred is not required.
    • However, the CJI should consider the views of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and one or more Supreme Court judges who are in a position to provide their opinions.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, aiming for the betterment of the administration of justice.

     

  • What is a Constitution Bench?

    Central Idea: A new Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is scheduled to start hearing a list of some cases from July 12.

    What is a Constitution Bench?

    • The constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India.
    • The Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and refer cases to it.

    Constitution benches are set up when the following circumstances exist:

    1. Interpretation of the Constitution: Article 145(3) provides for the constitution of at least five judges of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution of India.
    2. President of India seeking SC’s opinion: When the President has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on a question of fact or law under Article 143 of the Constitution. Article 143 of the Constitution provides for Advisory jurisdiction to the SC. As per the provision, the President has the power to address questions to the apex Court, which he deems important for public welfare.
    3. Conflicting Judgments: When two or more three-judge benches of the Supreme Court have delivered conflicting judgments on the same point of law, necessitating a definite understanding and interpretation of the law by a larger bench.
    • The Constitution benches are set up on ad hoc basis as and when the above-mentioned conditions exist.
    • Constitution benches have decided many of India’s best-known and most important Supreme Court cases, such as:
    1. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (Preventive detention)
    2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Basic structure doctrine) and
    3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (OBC reservations) etc.