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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • [pib] Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary

    The Union Cabinet has approved the continuation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for the Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary. It also approved the decision to support the Gram Nyayalayas by proving recurring and non-recurring grants for a period of 5 years with a total outlay of Rs 50 crores.

    About the Scheme

    • A Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary has been in operation since 1993-94.
    • Adequacy of judicial infrastructure is critical for the reduction of pendency and backlog of cases in Courts.
    • The primary responsibility of infrastructure development for the subordinate judiciary rests with the State Governments.
    • The present proposal provides for additional activities like the construction of lawyer halls, toilets complexes and digital computer rooms.
    • This will add to the convenience of lawyers and litigants besides reducing the digital divide.

    Why such a move?

    • Adequacy of judicial infrastructure is critical for the reduction of pendency and backlog of cases in Courts.
    • Several courts are still functioning in rented premises with insufficient space and some in dilapidated conditions without basic amenities.
    • Well-equipped judicial infrastructure facilitates the administration of justice in a manner that allows easy access and timely delivery of justice to all.

    What is Gram Nyayalayas Scheme?

    • Gram Nyayalayas were established for speedy and easy access to the justice system in the rural areas across the country.
    • The Gram Nyayalayas Act came into force on October 2, 2009.
    • In terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, it is for the State Governments to establish Gram Nyayalayas in consultation with the respective High Courts.
    • The Act authorizes Gram Nyayalaya to hold a mobile court outside its headquarters.
    • Some major reasons behind the non-enforcement include financial constraints, the reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.

    Features of the Gram Nyayalayas

    • Gram Nyayalaya is established generally at headquarter of every Panchayat at the intermediate level or a group of contiguous panchayat in a district where there is no panchayat at an intermediate level.
    • The Gram Nyayalayas are presided over by a Nyayadhikari, who will have the same power, enjoy the same salary and benefits of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
    • Such Nyayadhikari is to be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the respective High Court.

    Jurisdiction

    • A Gram Nyayalaya have jurisdiction over an area specified by a notification by the State Government in consultation with the respective High Court.
    • The Court can function as a mobile court at any place within the jurisdiction of such Gram Nyayalaya, after giving wide publicity to that regard.
    • The Gram Nyayalayas have both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the offences and nature of suits specified in the First, Second and Third schedule of the Act.
    • The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Nyayalayas are fixed by the respective High Courts.
    • Appeals in criminal matter can be made to the Sessions Court in the respective jurisdiction and in civil matters to the District Court within a period of one month from the date of judgment.

    Trials

    • Gram Nyayalayas can follow special procedures in civil matters, in a manner it deem just and reasonable in the interest of justice.
    • Civil suits are proceeded on a day-to-day basis, with limited adjournments and are to be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of institution of the suit.
    • In execution of a decree, the Court can allow special procedures following rules of natural justice.
    • Gram Nyayalayas allow for conciliation of the dispute and settlement of the same in the first instance.
    • They have been given the power to accept certain evidence which would otherwise not be acceptable under the Indian Evidence Act.

  • Collegium system’s role in protecting democracy

    Context

    Judiciary is being challenged, from within and outside. It must shield itself from further erosion of its independence and competence by scrupulously following the law, as declared by the Supreme Court (SC) itself.

    How the Collegium helped to secure the independence of judiciary

    • In 1993, the SC held the following:
    • The process of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts is an integrated ‘participatory consultative process’.
    • The process aims at selecting the best and most suitable persons available for appointment.
    • The Collegium consists of the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the SC and high courts.
    • It was devised to ensure that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not merely his individual opinion, but an opinion formed collectively by a body of men at the apex level in the judiciary.
    • By judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court re-interpreting Article 124 and 214 of the Constitution empowered the judiciary to make appointments to the higher judiciary to secure the rule of law.

    Threat to the judicial independence

    • The framers of the Constitution were alive to the likely erosion of judicial independence.
    • On May 23, 1949, K T Shah stated that the Judiciary, which is the main bulwark of civil liberties, should be completely separate from and independent of the Executive, whether by direct or by indirect influence.
    • In  2016, the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment for creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    • The SC strongly disapproved of any role for the political executive in the final selection and appointment of judges.
    • The SC said that “reciprocity and feelings of payback to the political executive” would be disastrous to the independence of the judiciary.

    Consider the question “How the Collegium system helped the Judiciary secure its independence? What are the issues with it?”

    Conclusion

    The selection of deserving judges is essential to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The Collegium must do its best in this task.

    Back2Basics: About the National Judicial Appointments Commission

    • The NJAC or National Judicial Appointments Commission sought to change the system, where judges would have been appointed by a commission where the legislative and the executive would have had a role.
    • The NJAC was supposed to comprise of the Chief Justice of India (Chairperson, ex-officio), two other senior judges of the Supreme Court, The Union Minister of Law and Justice, ex-officio and two eminent persons, to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India, and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
    • The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014, and became an Act.
    • The NJAC replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges.
    • The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and the President gave his assent on 31 December 2014.
    • The NJAC Act became effective from April 13, 2015.
    • The NJAC enjoyed support from the Supreme Court Bar Association and many legal luminaries but was also challenged by some lawyer associations and groups before the Supreme Court of India through Writ Petitions.
    • A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench that heard different arguments for over a month.
    •  Finally, on October 16, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act 2014 “unconstitutional and void”.

  • What is Tele-Law Scheme?

    The Law Ministry recently commemorated an event to mark the coverage of more than nine lakh beneficiaries of the government’s tele-law scheme, using common service centres (CSCs) to provide justice across the country.

    Tele-Law Scheme

    • The concept of Tele-Law is to facilitate the delivery of legal advice through a panel of lawyers stationed at the State Legal Services Authorities (SALSA) and CSC.
    • Tele-Law means the use of communications and information technology for the delivery of legal information and advice.
    • The project initiates to connect citizens with lawyers through video conferencing facilities by the Para-Legal Volunteers stationed at identified 50,000 CSCs.
    • This e-interaction between lawyers and people would be through the video-conferencing infrastructure available at the CSCs.

    Features of the program

    • Under this programme, smart technology of video conferencing, telephone/instant calling facilities available at the vast network of CSC.
    • It enables anyone to seek legal advice without wasting precious time and money.
    • The service is free for those who are eligible for free legal Aid as mentioned under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
    • For all others, a nominal fee is charged.

    Back2Basics: Free legal aid in India

    • Article 21 of the Constitution of India states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
    • Hence ensuring legal aid to everyone is necessary for ensuring substantive equality.
    • Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society, to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity.
    • Articles 14 and 22(1) also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before the law and a legal system that promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity to all.

  • Issues with the UAPA and role of judiciary

    Context

    Father Stan Swamy passed away at a private hospital in Mumbai on July 5. Fr. Swamy was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

    How Supreme Court judgment leaves the scope for misuse of UAPA

    • The Supreme Court’s April 2019 decision in National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali on the interpretation of the UAPA has affected all downstream decisions involving the statute.
    • This decision has created a new doctrine.
    • According to the decision, in considering bail applications under the UAPA, courts must presume every allegation made in the First Information Report to be correct.
    • Further, bail can now be obtained only if the accused produces material to contradict the prosecution.
    • In other words, the burden rests on the accused to disprove the allegations, which is virtually impossible in most cases.
    • The decision has essentially excluded the admissibility of evidence at the stage of bail.
    • By doing so, it has effectively excluded the Evidence Act itself, which arguably makes the decision unconstitutional.
    • Due to the Supreme Court judgment, High Courts have their hands tied, and must perforce refuse bail, as disproving the case is virtually impossible.
    • The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to three young activists arrested under UAPA in a conspiracy relating to the 2020 riots in Delhi.
    • The Supreme Court reportedly expressed surprise and gave the direction that the decision will “not to be treated as precedent by any court” to give similar reliefs.

    Misuse of the UAPA

    • With such high barriers of proof, it is now impossible for an accused to obtain bail, and is in fact a convenient tool to put a person behind bars indefinitely.
    • This is being abused by the government, police and prosecution liberally: now, all dissenters are routinely implicated under charges of sedition or criminal conspiracy and under the UAPA.
    •  In multiple instances, evidence is untenable, sometimes even arguably planted, and generally weak overall.
    • But as a consequence of UAPA being applied, the accused cannot even get bail.

    Way forward

    • If we want to prevent the misuse, the decision in the Watali case must be urgently reversed or diluted, otherwise, we run the risk of personal liberties being compromised very easily.

    Conclusion

    The provision of the act leaves the scope for misuse and therefore judiciary and legislature need to take steps to provide safeguards to prevent the misuse.

  • Rule of Law vs Rule by Law

    What makes the Rule of Law different from the Rule by Law? It is the idea of justice and equity that separates the two. The article explains the principles that emerge as the basis of the Rule of law and the role of the judiciary in ensuring their constitutionality.

    Understanding law

    • Law, in its most general sense, is a tool of social control that is backed by the sovereign.
    • However, such a definition of law can be used not only to render justice, it can also be used to justify oppression.
    • Therefore it is argued that a law cannot really be classified as a “law” unless it imbibes within itself the ideals of justice and equity.
    • So, any law backed by a sovereign must be tempered by certain ideals or tenets of justice.
    • Only a state that is governed by such law, can be said to have the Rule of Law.
    • The British colonial power used the law as a tool of political repression, enforcing it unequally on the parties, with a different set of rules for the British and for the Indians.
    •  It was an enterprise famous for “Rule by Law”, rather than “Rule of Law.

    Four principles of rule of law

    • Clarity and accessibility: Laws must be clear and accessible, the people at least ought to know what the laws are.
    • Another implication of this principle is that they should be worded in simple, unambiguous language.
    • Equality: An important aspect of equality before law is having equal access to justice.
    • This guarantee of equal justice will be rendered meaningless if the vulnerable sections are unable to enjoy their rights because of their poverty or illiteracy or any other kind of weakness.
    • Another aspect is the issue of “gender equality”.
    • Participation of people: The third principle, the “right to participate in the creation and refinement of laws”.
    • The very essence of a democracy is that its citizenry has a role to play, directly or indirectly, in the laws that govern them.
    • In India, it is done through elections.
    • The idea that people are the ultimate sovereign is also to be found in notions of human dignity and autonomy
    • Strong independent judiciary: The fourth principle stemsp from the idea that the judiciary is the “guardian” of the Constitution.
    • The judiciary is the primary organ which is tasked with ensuring that the laws that are enacted are in line with the Constitution.

    Independent judiciary and role of media

    • The judiciary cannot be controlled, directly or indirectly, by the legislature or the executive, or else the Rule of Law would become illusory.
    • At the same time, judges should not be swayed by the emotional pitch of public opinion either, which is getting amplified through social media platforms.
    • Judges have to be mindful of the fact that the noise thus amplified is not necessarily reflective of what is right and what the majority believes in.
    • Therefore, media trials cannot be a guiding factor in deciding cases.
    • It is, therefore, extremely vital to function independently and withstand all external aids and pressures.
    • While there is a lot of discussion about the pressure from the executive, it is also imperative to start a discourse as to how social media trends can affect the institutions.

    Conclusion

    The importance of the judiciary shouldn’t blind us to the fact that the responsibility of safeguarding constitutionalism lies not just with the courts. All the three organs of the state, i.e., the executive, legislature and the judiciary, are equal repositories of constitutional trust.

  • Issues faced by India’s sexual minorities

    The article highlights the plight of sexual minorities despite the landmark judgments by the Supreme Court.

    Role played by the judiciary

    • The Delhi High Court’s verdict in Naz Foundation vs Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) was a landmark in the law of sexuality and equality jurisprudence in India.
    • The court held that Section 377 offended the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, because it creates an unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class.
    • In a retrograde step, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation (2013), reinstated Section 377 to the IPC.
    • However, the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs Union of India (2018) declared that the application of Section 377 IPC to consensual homosexual behaviour was “unconstitutional”.
    • This Supreme Court judgment has been a great victory to the Indian individual in his quest for identity and dignity.
    • It also underscored the doctrine of progressive realisation of rights.

    No legal sanction to same-sex marriage

    • Despite the judgments of the Supreme Court, there is still a lot of discrimination against sexual minorities in matters of employment, health and personal relationship.
    • The Union of India has recently opposed any move to accord legal sanction to same-sex marriages in India.
    • The Union of India stated that the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code does not automatically translate into a fundamental right for same sex couples to marry. 
    • The U.S. Supreme Court, in Obergefell vs Hodges (2015) underscored the emotional and social value of the institution of marriage and asserted that the universal human right of marriage should not be denied to a same-sex couple.
    • Indian society and the state should synchronise themselves with changing trends.

    Need to amend Article 15 to prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation

    • Article 15 secures the citizens from every sort of discrimination by the state, on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of them.
    • The grounds of non-discrimination should be expanded by including gender and sexual orientation.
    • In May 1996, South Africa became the first country to constitutionally prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    • The United Kingdom passed the “Alan Turing law” in 2017 which ‘granted amnesty and pardon to the men who were cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts’.

    Way forward

    • Justice Rohinton F. Nariman had directed in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors., the Government to sensitise the general public and officials, to reduce and finally eliminate the stigma associated with LGBTQ+ community through the mass media and the official channels.
    • School and university students too should be sensitised about the diversity of sexuality to deconstruct the myth of heteronormativity.
    • Heteronormativity is the root cause of hetero-sexism and homophobia.

    Conclusion

    It is time for change, but the burden should not be left to the powers that be. The onus remains with the civil society, the citizenry concerned and the LGBTQ+ community itself.

  • What is Recusal of Judges?

    In the last week, two Supreme Court judges have recused themselves from hearing cases relating to West Bengal.

    Can you list down some basic principles of judicial conduct?

    Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Competence and diligence and Equality are some of them as listed under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

    What is the Recusal of Judges?

    • Recusal is the removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a particular matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.
    • Recusal usually takes place when a judge has a conflict of interest or has a prior association with the parties in the case.
    • For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable.
    • Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right.
    • A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.

    Rules on Recusals

    • There are no written rules on the recusal of judges from hearing cases listed before them in constitutional courts. It is left to the discretion of a judge.
    • The reasons for recusal are not disclosed in an order of the court. Some judges orally convey to the lawyers involved in the case their reasons for recusal, many do not. Some explain the reasons in their order.
    • The decision rests on the conscience of the judge. At times, parties involved raise apprehensions about a possible conflict of interest.

    Issues with recusal

    • Recusal is also regarded as the abdication of duty. Maintaining institutional civilities are distinct from the fiercely independent role of the judge as an adjudicator.
    • In his separate opinion in the NJAC judgment in 2015, Justice Kurian Joseph highlighted the need for judges to give reasons for recusal as a measure to build transparency.
    • It is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

  • Significance of recent judgments in UAPA cases

    Recent judgements involving UAPA highlights the issues with certain provisions resulting in long years of undertrial imprisonment.

    Context

    In the past week, three seminal judgments involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) have been delivered. While these judgments are welcome developments, they also remind us that thousands continue to languish under the UAPA regime.

    Issues with the provisions of UAPA

    • Originally enacted in 1967, the UAPA was amended to be modelled as an anti-terror law in 2004 and 2008.
    • The period of detention is increased, enlarging the period of custody prior to which default bail cannot be granted.
    • Regular bail is subject to the satisfaction of the judge that no prima facie case exists.
    • Bail apart, the dilatory trial procedures ensure lengthy periods of pre-trial incarceration for the accused who are presumed guilty of heinous terror crimes.

    NCRB data reveal long years of undertrial imprisonment

    • As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, a total of 4,231 FIRs were filed under various sections of the UAPA between 2016 and 2019.
    •  While the number of acquittals is low,  the real picture emerges in the pendency rates.
    • The pendency rate at the level of police investigation is very high, at an average of 83 per cent.
    • This denotes that chargesheets are filed by the police on an average in about 17 per cent of the total cases taken up for investigation.
    • The rate of pendency at the level of trial is at an average of 95.5 per cent.
    • This indicates that trials are completed every year in less than 5 per cent cases.

    What did the courts say in various judgements?

    • The Supreme Court, in Union of India v K A Najeeb, held that despite restrictions on bail under the UAPA, constitutional courts can still grant bail on the grounds that the fundamental rights of the accused have been violated.
    • In Asif Iqbal Tanha v State of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court took this reasoning a step further, holding that it would not be desirable for courts to wait till the accused’s rights to a speedy trial are entirely vitiated before they are set at liberty.
    • Courts should exercise foresight, and in cases with hundreds of prosecution witnesses where a trial will not see a conclusion for years to come, courts should apply the principles laid down in Najeeb.

    Way forward

    •  Even within the constraints of the UAPA, much can be achieved if a responsive and independent judiciary follows the basic principles of natural justice and due process.
    • But access to the judiciary remains limited for most of the thousands incarcerated under this widely-used law.

    Conclusion

    The governments need to consider the issue of pendency of cases under UAPA and take steps to address the issues by either repealing certain provisions or ensuring speedy trials.

  • Balancing right to be forgotten with fair criticism and accountability

    The article discusses the interplay between right to be forgotten and the right of the public to access courts of record, concepts of fair criticism and accountability.

    Context

    The Delhi High Court recently ordered the removal of one of its own judgments from easy access. The High Court recognised that the petitioner may have a right to be forgotten, which must be balanced with the right of the public to access courts of record.

    Right to be forgotten

    • In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised the right to be forgotten as being under the ambit of the right to privacy (specifically, informational privacy) under the Constitution.
    • The Supreme Court observed that a lot of personal information may serve no “legitimate interest”, was “incorrect”, or was not “necessary” or “relevant”.
    • For now, individuals may request data hosts to take down some content, and it may be taken down based on the policies of the respective hosts.
    • There is a general consensus that people should be allowed to modify or delete information uploaded by themselves.
    • However, whether this extends to information uploaded by third parties is uncertain.
    • The right to be forgotten is, generally, the right to have information about a person removed from public access.

    Balancing between right of the public

    • The Delhi High Court recognised that the petitioner may have a right to be forgotten, which must be balanced with the right of the public to access courts of record.
    • Judgments are published for good reasons.
    • Trials held under public scrutiny act as a check against judicial caprices and help in enhancing the confidence of the public in the fairness and objectivity of the administration of justice.
    • The Supreme Court has made is clear that the right to be forgotten was subject to reasonable restrictions based on countervailing rights such as free speech.

    Consider the question “What is right to be forgotten and how it is related to the right to privacy? Examine the issues related to the implementation of the right to be forgotten.”

    Way forward

    • The High Court could have ordered that the name and personal details of the petitioner be redacted while maintaining public access to the judgment itself.

    Conclusion

    The right to be forgotten needs to be studied along with the concepts of fair criticism and accountability.

  • A national consensus on removal of sedition law is called for

    Is the government entitled to the love and affection of the citizens? Answer to this question lies in the Kedar Nath judgment recently invoked by the Supreme Court in a case against a journalist. The article deals with this issue.

    About the Kedar Nath judgement

    • A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that every journalist is entitled to the protection under the Kedar Nath judgment (1962) on the petition filed by journalist Vinod Dua.
    • The court entertained Dua’s writ petition under Article 32.
    • In the Kedar Nath judgement, the apex court had held that a citizen has the right to say or write whatever he likes about the government or its measures by way of criticism so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
    • Section 124A read along with explanations is not attracted without such an allusion to violence. 

    Increasing use of the sedition law

    • NCRB data shows that between 2016 to 2019, there has been a whopping 160 per cent increase in the filing of sedition charges with a conviction rate of just 3.3 per cent.
    • Of the 96 people charged in 2019, only two could be convicted.
    • A number of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protesters are facing sedition charges.

    Background of Section 124-A

    • Section 124-A was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code drafted by Lord Macaulay and treason was confined just to levying war.
    • It was inserted in 1870 in response to the Wahabi movement that had asked Muslims to initiate jihad against the colonial regime.
    • It was argued that Wahabis are going from village to village and preaching that it was the sacred religious duty of Muslims to wage a war against British rule.

    Way forward

    • In 2018, the Law Commission had recommended that the sedition law should not be used to curb free speech.
    •  Let the criminal law revision committee working under the Ministry of Home Affairs make the bold recommendation of dropping the draconian law.
    • A political consensus needs to be forged on this issue.

    Conclusion

    No government, as Mahatma Gandhi told Judge R S Broomfield, has a right to love and affection and people in a free country committed to the liberty of thought and freedom of expression should not be criminally punished for expressing their opinion about the government.