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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • Plea in Supreme Court seeks ‘Uniform Judicial Code’ for HCs

    A petition was filed in the Supreme Court to implement a “Uniform Judicial Code (UJC)” for High Courts across the country to adopt a uniform set of procedures, especially for virtual courts.

    What is the PIL about?

    • The petition urged the apex court to take appropriate steps to adopt uniform procedure for case registration, use common judicial terms, phrases and abbreviations and make the court fee uniform.
    • It has, alternatively, sought a direction to the Law Commission of India to prepare a report in consultation with the HC in this regard.

    Why need UJC?

    • Matter of Equality: Judicial equality is a matter of constitutional right, its differentiation based on the jurisdiction of courts violates the right to equality.
    • Different nomenclatures: All the 25 High Courts have different usage of the phrases when it comes to identifying different cases.
    • Diverse procedures: The PIL plea highlighted how different High Courts follow different procedures in matters pertaining to virtual courts, started during the pandemic.
    • Different fees: Unequal court fees in different states discriminate among citizens based on their place of birth and residence. Moreover, it promotes regionalism; hence it is a clear violation of Articles 14-15.

    Way forward: Bringing in digitized Judiciary systems

    • The judiciary needs to develop a well-defined framework supported by an accessible platform and direct e-court system in India.
    • It also needs to harp on advanced infrastructure to run an e-court system that eradicates the digital divide, simultaneously upping judicial functioning.
    • While the digitized judicial systems give some semblance of convenience for the people who interact with the court, digitization also brings threats of intrusion etc.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Judges cannot be shielded from citizens’ questions

    Context

    Recently, the Chief Justice of India, in his own mild way, protested against the attack on judges. One can understand his pain and agony, but he too knows that judges do not, and should not live in ivory towers.

    Questioning and analysing actions of the judiciary

    • As the judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, and the Constitution entrusts judges with the task of protecting the constitutional rights of the people, especially the right to life and liberty, the consumer of justice has every right, and would be fully justified in critically examining, and commenting upon each and every word of the judges spoken or written, howsoever unpalatable it may be.
    • It appears that it is in the above spirit that MP Shashi Tharoor, speaking in Parliament on the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill said that the judiciary had failed to stem the tide of militant majoritarianism.
    • He alleged that the “judiciary’s inaction almost always favours those in power”. 
    • He has raised pertinent questions, and has brought out the glaring failings of the judiciary in matters concerning the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens. 
    • Pendency of important cases such as the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, the Citizenship Amendment Act, electoral bonds, and many petitions under the preventive detention laws highlights this issue.

    Issues in functioning of collegium system

    • As regards the functioning of the collegium system, judges are transferred without any seeming justification, and in some cases re-transferred, justifying neither their initial transfer nor the re-transfer.
    • Some elevations of judges raise eyebrows, while some are ignored.
    • Should the collegium not be more transparent than it has been in the past in the matter of the elevation and transfers of judges?

    Conclusion

    Judges cannot be shielded from citizens’ questions. After all, as a consumer of justice, the citizen has a right to know.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • In news: Law Commission of India

    The Government has informed the Supreme Court that the appointment of Chairperson and Members of the 22nd Law Commission of India is under consideration.

    Why in news?

    • The setting up of the 22nd Law Commission was constituted by the Government on February 21, 2020.
    • However, no progress has been made in the appointments till date.
    • The Government invoked the ‘doctrine of separation of power’, which says that one arm of governance should not encroach into that of another.

    Issues over appointment

    • The last chairman of the law commission was retired Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan, who completed his tenure on 31 August 2018.
    • Subsequently, the Commission has not been reconstituted.
    • In February 2020, the Government of India announced its intention to reconstitute the Commission with no visible progress.

    About Law Commission

    • Law Commission of India is a currently-defunct executive body established by an order of the Government of India.
    • The Commission’s function is to research and advise the GoI on legal reform, and is composed of legal experts, and headed by a retired judge.
    • The commission is established for a fixed tenure and works as an advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
    • The last chairman of the Commission retired in August 2018, and since then, it has not been reconstituted.

    Colonial Background

    • The first Law Commission was established during colonial rule in India, by the East India Company under the Charter Act of 1833.
    • It was then presided by Lord Macaulay.
    • After that, three more Commissions were established in pre-independent India.

    Post-Independence functioning

    • The first Law Commission of independent India was established in 1955 for a three-year term.
    • Since then, twenty-one more Commissions have been established.

    Major reforms undertaken

    • The First Law Commission under Macaulay Itsuggested various enactments to the British Government, most of which were passed and enacted and are still in force in India.
    • These include the Indian Penal Code (first submitted in 1837 but enacted in 1860 and still in force), Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 1898, repealed and succeeded by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973), etc.
    • Thereafter three more Law Commissions were established which made a number of other recommendations the Indian Evidence Act (1872) and Indian Contract Act (1872), etc. being some of the significant ones.

    Role in legal reforms

    The Law Commission has been a key to law reform in India.

    • Its role has been both advisory and critical of the government’s policies
    • In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has referred to the work done by the commission and followed its recommendations.
    • The Commission seeks to simplify procedures to curb delays and improve standards of justice.
    • It also strives to promote an accountable and citizen-friendly government that is transparent and ensures the people’s right to information.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • In news: Two principles of Justice

    This newscard is an excerpt of the original article published in TH.

    Note: This article is of extreme theoretical nature. But it leaves scope for many vague questions for prelims as well as mains where most of us go clueless.

    Two principles of Justice

    • The concept, so-called, of “two principles of justice”, is synonymous with the name of John Rawls, a highly influential American liberal political philosopher of the last century.
    • The concept of two principles forms an encapsulation of the core principles of:
    • Freedom and equality embodied in the constitutions of any contemporary liberal democratic society
    • As such, they have acquired pre-eminence in a wide range of academic disciplines and in the arena of public policymaking.

    What are the two principles?

    • The first of Rawls’ two principles says that every citizen has the same claim to a scheme of equal basic liberties, which must also be compatible with those of every other citizen.
    • It enumerates an extensive list of basic civil and political rights, including a person’s freedom of conscience, expression and association; the right to a basic income; and the right to exercise the franchise.
    • Their resonance with the practical world of politics needs no emphasis; consider the chapter on fundamental rights in any constitution.
    • The second of Rawls’ two principles grapples with the underlying inequalities of social and economic institutions.

    How can these be reasonably justified to free and equal citizens?

    • In order to be morally defensible, the institutions must satisfy two conditions.
    1. First, they must guarantee fair equality of opportunities for competition to positions of public office and employment.
    2. Second, social and economic inequalities must be arranged in a manner that they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
    • This latter postulate is Rawls’ famous “difference principle”.

    Significance of this principle

    • The political significance of Rawls’ two principles of justice obtains equally in the relative weight and primacy he assigns to their different components.
    • Between them, the first principle is accorded absolute priority over the second.
    • That is to say, the primacy of the equal basic liberties of citizens is non-negotiable in a democratic society.
    • The entitlement of each to the various liberties is as critical as they are universal and non-discriminatory.
    • Within the second principle, the first part takes precedence over the second.
    • In other words, public institutions could not appear legitimate in the eyes of citizens unless everybody could reasonably expect to enjoy the fruits of fair equality of opportunities.

     

    Try this question from CSP 2020:

    Q. One common agreement between Gandhism and Marxism is

    (a) The final goal of a stateless society

    (b) Class struggle

    (c) Abolition of private property

    (d) Economic determinism

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”yuea3fd1vc” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Unresolved constitutional cases

    Context

    As 2021 draws to a close, a look at the Supreme Court of India’s docket reveals a host of highly significant constitutional cases that were long-pending when the year began, and are now simply a year older without any sign of resolution around the corner.

    How delay in judicial process matters differently for the State and individual?

    • While the violation of rights — whether through executive or legislative action — is relatively costless for the state, it is the individual, or individuals, who pay the price.
    • Making the Constitution effective: Consequently, a Constitution is entirely ineffective if a rights-violating status quo is allowed to exist and perpetuate for months, or even years, before it is finally resolved.
    • This point, of course, is not limited to the violation of rights, but extends to all significant constitutional questions that arise in the course of controversial state action.
    • Missing the accountability: Issues around the federal structure, elections, and many others, all involve questions of power and accountability, and the longer that courts take to resolve such cases, the more we move from a realm of accountability to a realm of impunity.
    • The longer such cases are left hanging without a decision, the greater the damage that is inflicted upon our constitutional democracy’s commitment to the rule of law.

    Significant cases that are unresolved

    [a] Challenge to the dilution of Article 370

    • There is the constitutional challenge to the Presidential Orders of August 5, 2019, that effectively diluted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and bifurcated the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, controlled by the Centre.
    • It raises the question of whether the Centre can take advantage of an Article 356 situation in a State — a time when no elected government and Assembly is in existence — to make permanent and irreversible alterations in the very structure of the State itself.
    •  Implications for federal structure: The answer will have important ramifications not just for Jammu and Kashmir but for the entire federal structure:
    • India has a long history of the abuse of Article 356 to “get rid of” inconvenient State governments, and a further expansion of the power already enjoyed by the Centre will skew an already tilted federal scheme even further.
    • Power of the Parliament to alter convert State into UT: The case also raises the question of whether, under the Constitution, the Union Legislature has the authority not simply to alter State boundaries (a power granted to it by Article 3 of the Constitution), but degrade a State into a Union Territory.
    • If it turned out that the Union Legislature does have this power, it would essentially mean that India’s federal structure is entirely at the mercy of Parliament.

    [2] Constitutional challenge to the electoral bond scheme

    • Opaque and structurally biased: The electoral bonds scheme authorises limitless, anonymous corporate donations to political parties, making election funding both entirely opaque to the people, as well as being structurally biased towards the party that is in power at the Centre.
    • Impact on integrity and right of the citizens to informed vote: In numerous central and State election cycles in the last four years, thousands of crores of rupees have been spent in anonymous political donations, thus impacting not only the integrity of the election process but also the constitutional right of citizens to an informed vote.
    • However, other than two interim orders, the Supreme Court has refused to accord a full hearing to the constitutional challenge.

    [3] Other significant cases

    • Statutory basis of the CBI: As far back as 2013, the Gauhati High Court held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was not established under any statutory authority.
    • This verdict was immediately stayed when it was appealed to the Supreme Court, but in the intervening years, it has never been heard.
    • Challenge to the CAA: More recently, constitutional challenges to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), filed in the immediate aftermath of the legislation’s enactment, remain unheard.
    • Challenge to the UAPA: The challenges to the much-criticised Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which makes the grant of bail effectively impossible, and is responsible for the years-long incarceration of several people.
    • The challenge to Section 43(D)(5) is perhaps the case that most directly affects civil rights, as the section continues to be applied on a regular basis.

    Implications of the delay

    • Favouring one party: The Supreme Court’s inaction is not neutral, but rather, favours the beneficiaries of the status quo.
    • In other words, by not deciding, the Court is in effect deciding — in favour of one party — but without a reasoned judgment that justifies its stance.
    • Impact on accountability: Judicial evasion of this kind is also damaging for the accountability of the judiciary itself.
    • The Court’s inaction plays as significant a role on the ground as does its action, there is no judgment — and no reasoning — that the public can engage with.
    • Impact on the rule of law: For obvious reasons, this too has a serious impact on the rule of law.

    Consider the question “What are the implications of the delay in deciding the constitutionally significant cases? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    The current CJI has been on record stressing the importance of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. One way of demonstrating that in action might be to hear — and decide — the important constitutional cases pending before the Court.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • SC pushes for National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation (NJIC)

    The Supreme Court orally said that courts cannot wait on the whims and fancies of the Government, but need a proper mechanism for funding the development of judicial infrastructure.

    National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation (NJIC)

    • The idea for such NJIC was first proposed by CJI Ramana in March this year, even before he took office.
    • It mooted the idea of an “umbrella national organization” that would take care of the need for judicial infrastructure.
    • Such a corporation would bring the uniformity and standardization required to revolutionize judicial infrastructure, said CJI.
    • Soon after he was sworn in, the CJI commenced work on the NJIC and a survey of 6,000 trial courts in various states was undertaken as part of this exercise.

    CJI recommends the composition of NJIC

    • The CJI has said that the Judiciary is least interested in retaining control of the council.
    • The composition can be of the Union Minister for Law and Justice, the Secretary, Finance, etc.
    • The States can also be represented.
    • The benefit of having a senior judge or Chief Justice on it would be that they are in the know of things.

    Why need NJIC?

    • No central agency: Presently, there is no agency to ensure use of funds allocated to augment judicial infrastructure
    • Infrastructure gap: There is a substantial gap in infrastructure and availability of basic amenities in the lower judiciary.
    • Lack of basic amenities: There is a lack of court halls, residential accommodation, and waiting room for litigants in trial courts, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.
    • Budgetary lapses: Experience shows that budgetary allocation for state judiciary often lapses since there is no independent body to supervise and execute works.

    NJIC is expected to fill this vacuum and overcome problems related to infrastructure.

    Significance of NJIC

    • The modernization of judicial infrastructure did not mean building more courts or filling up vacancies or ploughing through vacancies.
    • An efficient “judicial infrastructure” means providing equal and free access to justice.
    • This could be realized through a barrier-free and citizen-friendly environment.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Why are Judicial Transfers riddled by controversies?

    The transfer of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court has given rise to a controversy over the question of whether judicial transfers are made only for administrative reasons or have any element of ‘punishment’ behind them.

    Transfer of judges and the Constitution

    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of High Court judges, including the Chief Justice.
    • It says the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, may transfer a judge from one High Court to any other High Court.
    • It also provides for a compensatory allowance to the transferred judge.
    • This means that the executive could transfer a judge, but only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
    • From time to time, there have been proposals that one-third of the composition of every High Court should have judges from other States.

    What is the Supreme Court’s view on the issue?

    Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977)

    • The Supreme Court rejected the idea that High Court judges can be transferred only with their consent.
    • It reasoned that the transfer of power can be exercised only in public interest.
    • It held that the President is under an obligation to consult the CJI, which meant that all relevant facts must be placed before the CJI.
    • It ruled CJI had the right and duty to elicit and ascertain further facts from the judge concerned or others.

    S.P. Gupta vs. President of India, 1981 (First Judges Case)

    • It considered the validity of the transfer Judges as well as a circular from the Law Ministry.
    • The Ministry had put that additional judge in all High Courts may be asked for their consent to be appointed as permanent judges in any other High Court, and to name three preferences.
    • The Minister’s reasoning was that such transfers would promote national integration and help avoid parochial tendencies bred by caste, kinship and other local links and affiliations.
    • The majority ruled that consultation with the CJI did not mean ‘concurrence’ with respect to appointments.

    SCARA Vs Union of India, 1993 (Second Judges Case)  

    • In effect, it emphasized the primacy of the executive in the matter of appointments and transfers.
    • However, this position was overruled in the ‘Second Judges Case’ (1993).
    • The opinion of the CJI, formed after taking into account the views of senior-most judges, was to have primacy.
    • Since then, appointments are being made by the Collegium.

    Current procedure for transfers

    • As one of the points made by the ‘Second Judges Case’ was that the opinion of the CJI ought to mean the views of a plurality of judges, the concept of a ‘Collegium of Judges’ came into being.
    • In the collegium era, the proposal for transferring a High Court judge, including a Chief Justice, should be initiated by the Chief Justice of India, “whose opinion in this regard is determinative”.
    • The consent of the judge is not required.
    • All transfers are to be made in public interest, i.e. for promoting better administration of justice throughout the country.
    • For transferring a judge other than the Chief Justice, the CJI should take the views of the CJ of the court concerned, as well as the CJ of the court to which the transfer is taking place.
    • The CJI should also take into account the views of one or more Supreme Court judges who are in a position to offer their views.
    • In the case of transfer of a Chief Justice, only the views of one or more knowledgeable Supreme Court judges need to be taken into account.

    Provision for Written Recommendation

    • The views should all be expressed in writing, and they should be considered by the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, which means, the full Collegium of five.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Union Law Minister who should submit the relevant papers to the Prime Minister.
    • The PM then advises the President on approving the transfer.

    What makes transfers controversial?

    • Punitive intent: Transfer orders become controversial when the Bar or sections of the public feel that there is a punitive element behind the decision to move a judge from one High Court to another.
    • No disclosure of reasons: As a matter of practice, the Supreme Court and the government do not disclose the reason for a transfer.
    • Adverse opinions behind: For, if the reason is because of some adverse opinion on a judge’s functioning, disclosure would impinge on the judge’s performance and independence in the court to which he is transferred.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • A new jurisprudence for political prisoners

    Context

    In Thwaha Fasal vs Union of India, the Court has acted in its introspective jurisdiction and deconstructed the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) with a great sense of legal realism. This paves the way for a formidable judicial authority against blatant misuse of this law.

    Background of the case

    • In this case from Kerala, there are three accused.
    • The police registered the case and later the investigation was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
    • During the investigation, some materials containing radical literature were found, which included a book on caste issues in India and a translation of the dissent notes written by Rosa Luxemburg to Lenin.
    • Thus, the provisions of the UAPA were invoked.
    • After initial rejection of the pleas, the trial judge granted bail to both the accused in September 2020.
    • The Supreme Court was emphatic and liberal when it said that mere association with a terrorist organisation is not sufficient to attract the offences alleged.
    • Unless and until the association and the support were “with intention of furthering the activities of a terrorist organisation”, offence under Section 38 or Section 39 is not made out, said the Court.

    Issues with UAPA

    • Section 43D(5) of the UAPA says that for many of the offences under the Act, bail should not be granted, if “on perusal of the case diary or the report (of the investigation), there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true”.
    • Thus, the Act prompts the Court to consider the version of the prosecution alone while deciding the question of bail.
    • Unlike the Criminal Procedure Code, the UAPA, by virtue of the proviso to Section 43D(2), permits keeping a person in prison for up to 180 days, without even filing a charge sheet.
    • Prevents examination of the facts: The statute prevents a comprehensive examination of the facts of the case on the one hand, and prolongs the trial indefinitely by keeping the accused in prison on the other.
    • Instead of presumption of innocence, the UAPA holds presumption of guilt of the accused.
    • In Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the Court said that by virtue of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, the burden is on the accused to show that the prosecution case is not prima facie true.
    • The proposition in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali is that the bail court should not even investigate deeply into the materials and evidence and should consider the bail plea, primarily based on the nature of allegations, for, according to the Court, Section 43D(5) prohibits a thorough and deeper examination.
    • The top court has now altered this terrible legal landscape.

    Key takeaways from the judgement

    • The text of the laws sometimes poses immense challenge to the courts by limiting the space for judicial discretion and adjudication.
    • The courts usually adopt two mutually contradictory methods in dealing with such tough provisions.
    • One is to read and apply the provision literally and mechanically which has the effect of curtailing the individual freedom as intended by the makers of the law.
    • In contrast to this approach, there could be a constitutional reading of the statute, which perceives the issues in a human rights angle and tries to mitigate the rigour of the content of the law.

    Conclusion

    The judgment should be invoked to release other political prisoners in the country who have been denied bail either due to the harshness of the law or due to the follies in understanding the law or both.

  • All India Judicial Service (AIJS): The centralised recruitment debate

    The central government is preparing to give a fresh push to the establishment of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) on the lines of the central civil services.

    All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

    • The AIJS is a reform push to centralize the recruitment of judges.
    • It would work at the level of additional district judges and district judges for all states.
    • In the same way that the UPSC conducts a central recruitment process and assigns successful candidates to cadres, judges of the lower judiciary are proposed to be recruited centrally and assigned to states.
    • This idea has been debated in legal circles for decades, and remains contentious.

    How are district judges currently recruited?

    • Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India deal with the appointment of district judges, and place it in the domain of the states.
    • The selection process is conducted by the State Public Service Commissions and the concerned High Court since High Courts exercise jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary in the state.
    • Panels of High Court judges interview candidates after the exam and select them for an appointment.
    • All judges of the lower judiciary up to the level of district judge are selected through the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) exam.

    Why has the AIJS been proposed?

    The idea was to ensure:

    • Efficient subordinate judiciary
    • Address structural issues such as varying pay and remuneration across states
    • Fill vacancies faster
    • Ensure standard training across states

    Beginning of the debate

    • The idea of a centralized judicial service was first proposed in the Law Commission 1958 ‘Report on Reforms on Judicial Administration’.
    • It was proposed again in the Law Commission Report of 1978, which discussed delays and arrears of cases in the lower courts.
    • In 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee backed the idea of a pan-Indian judicial service, and also prepared a draft Bill.

    What is the judiciary’s view on the AIJS?

    • 1992: the Supreme Court directed the Centre to set up an AIJS in All India Judges’ Assn. vs Union of India
    • 1993: In review of the judgment, the court left the Centre at liberty to take the initiative on the issue.
    • 2017: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue of appointment of district judges, and mooted a “Central Selection Mechanism”.

    What is the opposition to the AIJS?

    • Blow to federalism: AJIS is seen as an affront to federalism and an encroachment on the powers of states granted by the Constitution.
    • Language of Business: Language and representation, for example, are key concerns highlighted by states. Judicial business is conducted in regional languages, whi ch could be affected by central recruitment.
    • Quotas: Also, reservations based on caste, and even for rural candidates or linguistic minorities in the state, could be diluted in a central test, it has been argued.
    • Separation of power: The opposition is also based on the constitutional concept of the separation of powers.
    • Not a complete remedy: Additionally, legal experts have argued that the creation of AIJS will not address the structural issues plaguing the lower judiciary.

    Why is the government seeking to revive the idea of AIJS?

    • The government has targeted the reform of the lower judiciary in its effort to improve India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking.
    • It will act as efficient dispute resolution is one of the key indices in determining the rank.
    • AIJS is a step in the direction of ensuring an efficient lower judiciary.

    Centre’s argument for AJIS

    • The government has cited IAS officers’ examples.
    • It has argued that if a central mechanism can work for administrative services — IAS officers learn the language required for their cadre — it can work for judicial services too.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The Supreme Court is walking the talk on citizens’ rights

    Context

    When the bench of the Chief Justice of India passed an order appointing a committee in the Pegasus matter, it served the interest of every Indian.

    What led to the appointment of committee by the Supreme Court

    • Pegasus has allegedly been used against politicians and individuals across the globe, including against politicians, journalists and other private individuals in India.
    • The issue rocked Parliament, but the government was not willing to share any information pertaining to the software or its use, citing national security as a reason.
    • The alleged victims of the software turned to the Supreme Court, and prayed for setting up of an independent enquiry.
    • The government, on being called upon by the Supreme Court, cited national security, contending that any information it let out would become a matter of public debate, which could be used by terror groups to hamper national security.
    • Its unrelenting stand left the court with no option but to take a call on whether to blindly accept the government’s refusal to share no information whatsoever, or lean in favour of a citizen’s right to privacy, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution.
    • The Supreme Court chose the latter course.

    Balancing the fundamental rights  nad judicial review with national security

    • The Supreme Court has observed that “the state cannot get a free pass every time the spectre of national security is raised”.
    • It goes on to say that national security “cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this court should be circumspect in encroaching upon the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review”.

    Conclusion

    The Pegasus order upholding the individual’s right to a life of dignity and privacy, is music to the ears of those who believe in constitutional values and rule of law.
    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)