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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • SC introduces FASTER system to send records

    The Supreme Court has given its nod for e-transfer of orders to jails through the FASTER system for quick prisoner release.

    What is the FASTER system?

    • FASTER is an acronym form Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records.
    • The system is meant to ensure that undertrials are not made to wait for days on end behind bars to be released because the certified hard copies of their bail orders took time to reach the prison.
    • It is conceived for delivery of orders to concerned prisons, District Courts, High Courts, as the case may be, for instantaneous delivery of orders passed by apex court through a secure communication channel.
    • The process to develop the FASTER system began with the CJI’s observations in court on July 16 this year.

    Benefits offered

    • With FASTER, crucial decisions, including orders on bail and stay of arrest, can be communicated electronically to prison authorities and investigating agencies through a secure channel.
    • The system would also prevent unnecessary arrests and custody of people even after the court had already granted them its protection.
    • It may even communicate a stay on an execution ordered by the final court on time.

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

  • Judicial selection needs more than a tweak

    In recent weeks, the Supreme Court of India’s collegium has been busy. New judges have been appointed to the Court on its advice and long overdue vacancies have been filled up.

    Read this before proceeding:

    Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    What is the matter of concern?

    Ans. Transparency in appointments

    • These recommendations are seen as reflective of a new and proactive collegium.
    • What ought to concern us, though, is that long-standing apprehensions about the collegium’s operation remain unaddressed: specifically, its opacity and a lack of independent scrutiny of its decisions.
    • These misgivings are usually seen in the context of a battle between the executive and the judiciary.
    • Less evident is the effect that the failings have on the status of the High Courts.
    • Today, even without express constitutional sanction, the collegium effectively exercises a power of supervision over each of the High Courts.

    No specified reasons for Exclusion

    • For nearly two years, despite vacancies on the Bench, the collegium made no recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court.
    • The conjecture in the press was that this logjam owed to a reluctance amongst some of its members to elevate Justice Akil Kureshi to the Court.
    • Indeed, it was only after a change in its composition that the panel recommended on August 17 a list of names for elevation. This list did not contain Justice Kureshi’s name.
    • The perfunctory nature of the collegium’s resolutions means that we do not know the reasons for his exclusion.
    • We also do not know why five Chief Justices, including Justice Kureshi, and several other puisne judges are now being transferred to different courts.

    The public has right to know

    • This is not to suggest that these decisions are unfounded. It is possible that each of the choices made is predicated on administrative needs.
    • But whatever the rationale, surely the public has a right to know.

    What is needed?

    Ans. Striking a balance in Separation of Power

    • Separation of powers is a bedrock principle of Indian constitutionalism. Inherent in that idea is the guarantee of an autonomous judiciary.
    • To that end, the process of appointing and transferring judges assumes salience.
    • But the question of how to strike a balance between the sovereign function of making appointments and the need to ensure an independent judiciary has long plagued the republic.

    As suggested by Dr. Ambedkar

    • The Constitution’s framers wrestled over the question for many days. Ultimately, they adopted what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as a “middle course”.
    • That path stipulates the following: Judges to the Supreme Court are to be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges that he deems fit.
    • Judges to the High Courts are to be appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of that court.
    • In the case of transfers, the President may move a judge from one High Court to another, after consulting the CJI.

    Where does primacy rest?

    Ans. In a transparent Collegium system

    • In this design, there is no mention of a “collegium”.
    • But since 1993, when the Supreme Court rendered a ruling in the Second Judges Case, the word consultation has been interpreted to mean “concurrence”.
    • What is more, that concurrence, the Court held there, ought to be secured not from the CJI alone, but from a body of judges that the judgment described as a “collegium”.
    • Thus, the Court wound up creating a whole new process for making appointments and transfers and carved out a system where notional primacy came to rest in the top echelons of the judiciary.

    This procedure has since been clarified.  But there is, in fact, no actual guidance on how judges are to be selected.

    The NJAC and after

    • In 2015, Parliament sought to undo the procedures put in place by the Court through the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
    • The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), that the law created, comprised members from the judiciary, the executive, and the lay-public.
    • But the Court scrapped the efforts to replace the collegium and it held in the Fourth Judges Case that judicial primacy in making appointments and transfers was an essential feature of the Constitution.
    • In other words, the Court held that a body that found no mention in the actual text of the Constitution had assumed a position so sacrosanct that it could not be touched even by a constitutional amendment.

    Assessing the NJAC

    Ans. The NJAC was far from perfect

    • There were legitimate fears that the commission might have resulted in the appointment of malleable judges.
    • Therefore, it is plausible to argue that until a proper alternative is framed, the collegium represents the best solution.
    • This is that allowing senior judges of the Supreme Court primacy in matters of appointments and transfers is the only practical way to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

    Promises are yet unfulfilled over transparency

    • When the Court struck down the NJAC, it also promised to reform the existing system. Six years down the line those promises have been all but forgotten.
    • The considerations that must go into the procedure for selecting judges is left unexplained.
    • The words “merit” and “diversity” are thrown around without any corresponding debates on what they, in fact, mean.
    • Somehow, amidst all of this, we have arrived at a consensus that enveloping a veil over the process of selection is essential to judicial autonomy, and that there is no legitimate reason why the public ought to know how judges are chosen and transferred.

    Way forward

    • It is clear that we have come a long way from a time when Chief Justices of High Courts declined invitations to the Supreme Court, because they valued the work that they were already entrusted with.
    • Restoring High Courts to that position of prestige must be seen as essential to the process of building trust in our Constitution.
    • Achieving this will no doubt require more than just a tweak in the process of appointments.

    Conclusion

    • It is clear is that the present system and the mysteries underlining the decision-making only further dilute the High Courts’ prominence.
    • At some point we must take seriously the task of reforming the existing scheme because the status quo is ultimately corrosive of the very institutions that it seeks to protect.

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

  • Need for ‘Indianization’ of Legal System: CJI

    Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has asserted the need for the “Indianisation of our legal system”, pointing out that the colonial system being followed currently may not be best suited to the complexities of India.

    Prospects of Indianization by CJI

    • CJI meant that the need to adapt to the practical realities of our society and localize our justice delivery systems.
    • For example, parties from a rural place fighting a family dispute are usually made to feel out of place in the court.
    • They do not understand the arguments or pleadings which are mostly in English, a language alien to them.
    • These days judgments have become lengthy, which further complicates the position of litigants.
    • For the parties to understand the implications of a judgment, they are forced to spend more money.
    • For whom do the court’s function, the CJI asked. For the litigants, who are the “justice seekers”. They are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    What did CJI say?

    • CJI has said the ordinary Indian feels out of place in our courts where proceedings are lengthy, expensive and in English.
    • Besides, judgments are either too long or technical or manage to be both.
    • It is time for courts to wake up from their colonial stupor and face the practical realities of Indian society.
    • Rules and procedures of justice delivery should be made simple.
    • The ordinary, poor and rural Indian should not be scared of judges or the courts.

    Reasons for Indianization

    • Multiple barriers continue to thwart the citizen’s way to the courts.
    • The working and the style of courts do not sit well with the complexities of India.
    • The systems, practices and rules of courts are foreign and sourced from our colonial days. They do not take care of the practical realities of India.

    Major suggestions by CJI:

    (A) Simplification

    • The simplification of justice delivery should be our pressing concern.
    • It is crucial to make justice delivery more transparent, accessible and effective.
    • Procedural barriers often undermine access to justice.
    • The Chief Justice said both judges and lawyers have to create an environment which is comforting for the litigants and other stakeholders.

    (B) Alternate dispute mechanisms

    • The CJI said alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation would go a long way in reducing pendency, unnecessary litigation and save resources.

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

  • State control over Temples

    Context

    On August 14, 2021, the Tamil Nadu government appointed 24 trained archakas (priests) in temples across the State. In the weeks since, a series of writ petitions have been filed before the Madras High Court assailing these appointments.

    Administration of  Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu by government and challenges to it

    • The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), 1959, is the governing law on the administration of Hindu temples and religious institutions.
    • In 1971, Section 55 of the HR&CE Act was amended to abolish hereditary priesthood.
    • Removal of caste-based discrimination: In 2006, the amendment provided for the appointment of sufficiently trained Hindus irrespective of their caste as archakas to Hindu temples by the government.
    • Challenges in the Court: Challenges to both amendments were taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the law, as amended.
    •  In Seshammal v. Union (1972), the Supreme Court observed that the amendment to the HR&CE Act abolishing hereditary priesthood did not mean that the government intended to bring about any “change in the rituals and ceremonies”.
    • Constitutional legitimacy: In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2015), the Supreme Court observed that “the constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices”.
    • The Court further went on to state that appointments should be tested on a case-by-case basis and any appointment that is not in line with the Agamas will be against the constitutional freedoms enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

    Judicial balancing of the various rights by the Supreme Court

    • In Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (the Sabarimala case) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reiterated the need to eliminate “historical discrimination which has pervaded certain identities”’, “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”.
    • In these cases the Supreme Court rejected stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination.
    • In all these cases, the Court prioritised judicial balancing of various constitutional rights.
    • The constitutional order of priority: In the Sabarimala case, it held that “in the constitutional order of priorities, the individual right to the freedom of religion was not intended to prevail over but was subject to the overriding constitutional postulates of equality, liberty and personal freedoms recognised in the other provisions of Part III”.

    Way forward

    • Building on the Sabrimala case: The constitutional courts will now be called upon to build on the gains of the Sabarimala case when it comes to administration of temples, insofar as it concerns matters that are not essentially religious.
    • Dealing with the gender bias: The Supreme Court, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), interpreted Article 15 as being wide, progressive and intersectional.
    • Today, while most of the debate is around whether men from all caste groups can become archakas, we have failed to recognise the gender bias inherent in these discussions.

    Consider the question “We have been witnessing the evolution of rights-based jurisprudence in the various judgements of the Supreme Court. This will help to eliminate “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”, and reject stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    At once, caste orthodoxy and patriarchy entrenched within the realm of the HR&CE Act can be eliminated and supplanted with a vision of a just, equal and dignified society.

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

  • Allahabad HC verdict disqualifying then PM

    The 1975 verdict of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad high court, disqualifying then PM Indira Gandhi on charges of electoral malpractices was a judgment of “great courage” that “shook” the nation, said CJI in his speech.

    What was the case?

    • It all started with the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where the Congress (R), which was the newly formed faction of the Congress party floated by Indira Gandhi after her expulsion from the party in 1969, won a landslide victory securing 352 out of the 518 seats in the lower house.
    • An election petition was filed directly before a High Court challenging the election of Indira Gandhi.

    What is an Election Petition?

    • Election Petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election results.
    • The Representation of People (RP) Act of 1951 lists out the grounds on which the election of a candidate can be called into question.
    • Section 123 of the RP Act lists certain corrupt practices which, if proved successful, can be grounds to declare the election of a candidate void.
    • While hearing an election petition, the High Court being the court of first instance, exercises powers similar to a trial court.
    • Thus, there is cross-examination of witnesses and detailed examination of evidence which is normally employed in trial courts and not High Courts.

    Findings against Gandhi

    • Use of government machinery to set up stage, loudspeakers
    • Use of gazetted officer as an election agent

    A case that led to the promulgation of National Emergency

    The verdict is widely believed to have led to the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

    • A vacation bench of the Supreme Court allowed a partial stay of the judgment after Gandhi had appealed against the High Court verdict.
    • Then Justice VR Krishna Iyer, said that she could continue as Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha and could attend the House, but could not participate in its proceedings or vote as MP.
    • She also could not draw any remuneration as an MP.
    • Importantly, the apex court allowed her to continue as Prime Minister and allowed her to speak and participate in the proceedings of the House and to draw salary in her capacity as Prime Minister.
    • The order by the apex court, while not completely against Gandhi, did not satisfy her.
    • She wanted a blanket stay on the Allahabad High Court judgment.
    • Since the Supreme Court did not grant her that, National Emergency was proclaimed the very next day, June 25.

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

    Back2Basics: National Emergency

    • The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote National Emergency under Article 352.
    • Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.
    • The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion or external aggression
    • When a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’, it is known as ‘External Emergency’.
    • On the other hand, when it is declared on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal Emergency’.
    • The term ‘armed rebellion is inserted from the 44th amendment. Before this term, it was known as an internal disturbance.

     

  • Supreme Court Collegium shows the way in judicial appointments

    Context

    For the first time ever, the Supreme Court Collegium led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) recommended/selected as many as nine persons at one go to be appointed to the apex court.

    Significance of the move

    • It is a happy augury that the present CJI, Justice N.V. Ramana, could, along with his colleagues in the Collegium, select the judges within a short period of his assumption of office.
    • It is a tough task to build a consensus around one person or a few persons, the CJI being the head of the Collegium, has an unenviable task in building that consensus.
    • Therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the job of selecting as many as nine judges for appointment to the Supreme Court was done admirably well.
    •  The latest resolution of the Collegium gave effect to the multiple judicial pronouncements of the top court on the subject.
    • The selection of three women judges, with one of them having a chance to head the top court, a judge belonging to the Scheduled Caste and one from a backward community and the nine selected persons belonging to nine different States, all point towards an enlightened and unbiased approach of the members of the Collegium.
    • A needless controversy is sought to be raised by a section of the media about this round of selection citing the non-existing ‘Rule of Seniority’.

    Various norms to be followed in judicial appointment

    1) Consideration of merit

    • Article 142 (1) contains the concept of ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter which the Supreme Court is enjoined to deliver upon.
    • So, while selecting a judge to adorn the Bench, the fundamental consideration should be his/her ability to do complete justice.
    • In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another vs Union of India (1993), the Court spelt out the parameters within which to accomplish the task of selecting candidates for appointment to the higher judiciary.
    • The most crucial consideration is the merit of the candidates.
    • The merit is the ability of the judge to deliver complete justice.

    2) Plurality

    • The nine judges who decided the above case were quite aware of these compelling realities.
    • So, they said, “In the context of the plurastic [pluralistic] society of India where there are several distinct and differing interests of the people with multiplicity of religions, race, caste and community and with the plurality of culture, it is inevitable that all people should be given equal opportunity in all walks of life and brought into the mainstream.”

    3) Transparency

    • India is perhaps the only country where the judges select judges to the higher judiciary.
    • It is, therefore, necessary to make the norms of selection transparent and open.
    •  In 2019, a five judge Bench of the Supreme Court, of which the present CJI was also a member, laid emphasis on this point.
    • The Bench observed: “There can be no denial that there is a vital element of public interest in knowing about the norms which are taken into consideration in selecting candidates for higher judicial office and making judicial appointments”.

    Thus, the essence of the norms to be followed in judicial appointments is a judicious blend of merit, seniority, interests of the marginalised and deprived sections of society, women, religions, regions and communities. 

    Consider the question “What are the various norms to be followed by the Collegium for judicial appointments? What are the issues with Collegium system of judicial appointment?”

    Conclusion

    The Collegium has started doing its job. Now, it is time for the Government to match the pace and take the process of appointments to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

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

  • It is time to end judicial feudalism in India

    Context

    The August 11 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed that “hereinafter, all the courts in the state other than the high court shall be referred to as district judiciary”. Furthermore, “these courts shall not be referred to as subordinate court” but as trial courts.

    Issues with the judicial hierarchy Vs. hierarchy of judges

    • The expression “subordinate courts” used by Part VI, Chapter 6, of the Constitution of India cannot signify that judges are subordinate.
    • The term subordinate has implications for the independence of the judiciary, entrenched with and since Kesavananda Bharati (1973) as the essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
    • No judge is “subordinate” to any other, constitutionally judges are limited in the jurisdiction but also supreme within their own jurisdiction.
    • However, Article 235 speaks of “control over subordinate courts”.
    • This Article created the notion of subordination by describing these entities and agents as persons “holding a post inferior to the post of a district judge”.

    Constitutional provision

    • The Constitution no doubt contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”.
    • On appeal, or review, a court with ample jurisdiction may overturn and even pass judicial strictures but this does not make the concerned courts “lower” or “inferior” courts.
    • Supervisory powers: High courts always have considerable powers of superintendence on the administrative side but this “supervisory“ power has been recognised by the apex court as a “constitutional power” and subject to the right of appeal as granted by Article 235.
    • While the Constitution allows “supervision”, it does not sanction judicial despotism.
    • Despite this, arbitrary practices in writing confidential reports of district justices seem to continue.

    Way forward

    • Constitutional amendment: A complete recasting of Article 235 is needed, which does away with the omnibus expression of “control” powers in the high courts.
    • The amendment should specifically require the high courts to satisfy the criteria flowing from the principles of natural and constitutional justice and all judicial officers who fulfil due qualification thresholds should be treated with constitutional dignity and respect.
    • Collegiate system at high court’s level: For most matters (save elevation), senior-most district judges and judges of the high courts should constitute a collegiate system to facilitate judicial administration, infrastructure, access, monitoring of disposal rates, minimisation of undue delays in administration of justice, alongside matters concerning transfers, and leave.
    •  If an ACR is to be adversely changed in the face of a consistent award for a decade or more, it should be a collegiate act of the five senior-most justices, including the Chief Justice of the High Court.
    • CJI Ramana has recently agreed in principle, following the request of the Supreme Court Bar Association, that chief justices of the high courts should consider lawyers practising in the Supreme Court for elevation to the high courts.

    Consider the question “Do you agree with the view that the Constitution contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”. Give reason in support of your argument.”

    Conclusion

    The changes suggested here needs to be implemented to ensure the independence of the judiciary at all levels.

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

  • Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana has recommended to the government nine names for appointment as apex court judges.

    Significant appointments

    • The Collegium has for the first time, in one single resolution, recommended three women judges.
    • It has thus sent a strong signal in favor of the representation of women in the highest judiciary.
    • The process scripted history by naming Karnataka High Court judge B.V. Nagarathna, who may become India’s first woman CJI.

    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.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

    • Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
    • When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
    • In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
    • However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Criteria: Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge.

    Scope for transparency

    • In respect of appointments, there has been an acknowledgment that the “zone of consideration” must be expanded to avoid criticism that many appointees hail from families of retired judges.
    • The status of a proposed new memorandum of procedure, to infuse greater accountability, is also unclear.
    • Even the majority opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegium’s resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

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

    Back2Basics:

  • SC questions govt over Tribunal Reforms Bill

    The Supreme Court has challenged the government to produce material showing its reasons for introducing the Tribunal Reforms Bill of 2021, which abolishes nine appellate tribunals and revives provisions of an ordinance struck down by the Supreme Court, in the Parliament.

    What are Tribunals?

    • Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies that decide disputes in a particular area of law.
    • They are institutions established for discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties.
    • The objective may be to reduce the caseload of the judiciary or to bring in subject expertise for technical matters.

    Do you know?

    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established as the first Tribunal in India back in 1941.

    Creation of Tribunals

    In 1976, Articles 323A and 323B were inserted in the Constitution of India through the 42nd Amendment.

    • Article 323A: This empowered Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals (both at central and state level) for adjudication of matters related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.
    • Article 323B: This specified certain subjects (such as taxation and land reforms) for which Parliament or state legislatures may constitute tribunals by enacting a law.
    • In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that the subject matters under Article 323B are not exclusive, and legislatures are empowered to create tribunals on any subject matters under their purview as specified in the Seventh Schedule.

    SC stance on Tribunals

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, should have the same level of independence from the executive as the judiciary.
    • Key factors include the mode of selection of members, the composition of tribunals, and the terms and tenure of service.
    • In order to ensure that tribunals are independent of the executive, the Supreme Court had recommended that all administrative matters be managed by the law ministry rather than the ministry associated with the subject area.
    • Later, the Court recommended the creation of an independent National Tribunals Commission for the administration of tribunals.
    • These recommendations have not been implemented.

    Issues with tribunals

    • Pendency: Whereas the reasoning for setting up some tribunals was to reduce the pendency of cases in courts, several tribunals are facing the issue of a large caseload and pendency.
    • No appointment: With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals till date.

    Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021

     

    What is the recent news?

    • A three-judge Bench led by CJI has put the government on the dock about the complete absence of material justifying the Bill and also the lack of proper debate in the Parliament.
    • The provisions regarding conditions of service and tenure of Tribunal Members and Chairpersons were struck down by the Supreme Court.
    • However, the same provisions re-appeared in the Tribunal Reforms Bill recently passed.
    • The court has also noted its reservations against the complete dissolution of some tribunals.

    What happens to cases pending before the tribunals are dissolved?

    • These cases will be transferred to High Courts or commercial civil courts immediately. Legal experts have been divided on the efficacy of the government’s move.
    • While on the one hand, the cases might get a faster hearing and disposal if taken to High Courts, experts fear that the lack of specialization in regular courts could be detrimental to the decision-making process.
    • For example, the FCAT exclusively heard decisions appealing against decisions of the censor board, which requires expertise in art and cinema.

    Observations made by the Court

    • With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals to date.
    • The CJI repeated his question of whether the government was moving towards closing down the tribunals.

    A new flashpoint between Executive and Judiciary

    • The verdict discussed the possibility of legislation overriding the court’s directions.
    • In other cases, too, the SC and Parliament have been at loggerheads on the issue of rationalization of tribunals.

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

  • Issues related to Judicial appointment in India

    Context

    Recommendations of some judges for appointment by the collegium raises the issue of changes in the collegium system.

    Background of the collegium system

    • During the 1970s, the political leaning of a candidate had become a major consideration in the matter of appointment of judges.
    • Therefore, it was felt that the role of the state in the appointment of judges in terms of Article 124 (2) and 217 needed to be reconsidered.
    • But then, in 1982 in S P Gupta’s case, the Supreme Court bench of five judges gave its approval to the primacy of the state in the matter of appointment of judges.
    • However, that judgment was overturned subsequently by a bench of nine judges.
    • Primacy of CJI:  It held that the provisions for consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the Chief Justices of the high courts in Articles 124 (2) and 217 of the Constitution were introduced because of the realisation that the Chief Justice is best equipped to know and assess the worth of a candidate, and his/her suitability for appointment as a superior judge.
    • Initiation of proposal by CJI: It also held that the initiation of the proposal for appointment of a judge to the SC must be made by the CJI after wider consultation with senior judges, and likewise in the case of high courts.
    • Confirmation of CJI: It was also held that no appointment of any judge to the SC or any high court can be made unless it conforms with the opinion of the CJI.
    • Thus, what is known as the “collegium system” was born.
    • Striking down of NJAC: In 2014, the government tried to make changes to the collegium system by introducing Article 124 (A) by a constitutional amendment, and by enacting National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
    • The SC has struck down both the amendment and the Act.

    Has the collegium system succeeded?

    • Nepotism: There have been cases where the nearest relative of Supreme Court judges has been appointed as a high court judge, ignoring merit.
    • Ignoring the merit: Judges far lower in the combined All India Seniority of High Court judges were appointed to SC, and the reason assigned was that those selected were found more meritorious.

    Conclusion

    The collegium system is still the best, but it needs to weed out what is wrong in its actual working. It is hoped that the system will make course corrections in deserving cases.