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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • App to view live proceedings of SC launched for media persons

    App to view virtual proceedings

    • Chief Justice of India launched a mobile app that would allow media persons to view the Supreme Court’s virtual proceedings live on their mobile phones.
    • The role of the media assumes importance in the process of disseminating information.
    • Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said the facility, which is now temporary, could be made permanent in the future depending on the operational issues.

    ‘Indicative Notes’ on the SC website

    • The CJI also launched a new feature in the Supreme Court’s official website called ‘Indicative Notes’.
    • This feature is aimed at providing concise summaries of landmark judgments in an easy-to-understand format.
    • This will serve as a useful resource for media persons and the general public who wish to be better informed about the rulings of the court.

  • Reading Maratha quota verdict

    • A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Maharashtra law granting reservation to the Maratha community.
    • The court had framed six questions of law on the issue.
    • The court unanimously agreed on three of those issues, while the verdict was split 3:2 on the other three.

    Issue 1:  Whether Indra Sawhney judgment needs to be revisited

    • One of the key issues was to examine whether the 1992 landmark ruling by the nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney v Union of India had to be revisited.
    • First, it said that the criteria for a group to qualify for reservation is “social and educational backwardness”.
    • Second, it reiterated the 50% limit to vertical quotas reasoning that it was needed to ensure “efficiency” in administration.
    • However, the court said that this 50% limit will apply unless in “exceptional circumstances”.
    • The Maratha quota exceeded the 50% ceiling. 
    • The arguments by state governments before the court was that the Indra Sawhney verdict must be referred to a 11-judge Bench for reconsideration since it laid down an arbitrary ceiling which the Constitution does not envisage.
    • The court said that the 50% ceiling, although an arbitrary determination by the court in 1992, is now constitutionally recognized and held that there is no need to revisit the case.

    Issue 2 and 3: Does Maratha quota law come under exceptional circumstances

    • The state government’s argument was that since the population of backward class is 85% and reservation limit is only 50%, an increase in reservation limit would qualify as an extraordinary circumstance.
    • All five judges disagreed with this argument.
    • The bench ruled that the above situation is not extraordinary.

    Issue 4,5 and 6: Validity of 102nd Amendment

    • The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 gives constitutional status to the National Backward Classes Commission.
    • The Amendment also gives the President powers to notify backward classes.
    • The Bench unanimously upheld the constitutional validity of the 102nd Amendment but differed on the question of whether it affected the power of states to identify socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs).
    • Attorney General, appearing for the central government, clarified that this was not the intention of the law.
    • The Attorney General argued that it is inconceivable that no State shall have the power to identify backward class”.
    • The Attorney General explained that the state government will have their separate list of SEBCs for providing reservations in state government jobs and education.
    • The Parliament will only make the central list of SEBCs which would apply for central government jobs.
    • However, the Supreme Court held that “the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion (or modification of lists) of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and thereafter, in case of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the Parliament”.
    • This raises a question: How does this impact interventions by other states to provide reservations for other communities, for example Jats in Haryana and Kapus in Andhra?
    • The majority opinion essentially says that now the National Backward Classes Commission must publish a fresh list of SEBCs, both for states and the central list.
    • The Supreme Court also issued a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which says that till the publication of the fresh list the existing lists will continue to operate.

    ————————————————-//————————————-

    BACK2BASICS

    • National Commission for Backward Classes is a constitutional body (102nd amendment 2018 in the constitution to make it a constitutional body) (Article 338B of the Indian Constitution).
    • It was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.
    • According to Article 338B, Commission shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three other Members and the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members so appointed shall be such as the President may by rule determine. The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.

  • Supreme Court struck down law for reservation to Maratha community

    About the judgment

    • The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the provisions of a Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community.
    • It rejected demands to revisit the verdict or to refer it to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

    What the Supreme Court said

    • The Bench said that “providing reservation for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class in public services is not the only means and method for improving the welfare of backward class”
    • The 50% rule is to fulfill the objective of equality as engrafted in Article 14 of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets.
    • To change the 50% limit is to have a society that is not founded on equality but based on caste rule.
    • If the reservation goes above the 50% limit, it will be a slippery slope, the political pressure, make it hard to reduce the same.
    • It added that “the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000 by which sub-clause (4B) was inserted in Article 16 makes it clear that ceiling of 50% “has now received constitutional recognition”
    • The Supreme Court disapproved the findings of the Justice M G Gaikwad Commission on the basis of which Marathas were classified as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class.
    • It said that “the data collected and tabled by the Commission as noted in the report clearly proves that Marathas are not socially and educationally backward class”.

    SC upheld 102nd Constitution amendment

    • The SC also upheld the 102nd Constitution amendment, saying it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The bench, by 3:2 majority, held that after the amendment, only the President will have the power to identify backward classes in a state or Union Territory.
    • The amendment inserted Articles 338B and 342A in the Constitution.
    • Article 338B deals with the structure, duties and powers of the National Commission for Backward Classes.
    • Article 342A speaks about the power of the President to notify a class as Socially and Educationally Backward (SEBC) and the power of Parliament to alter the Central SEBC list. He can do this in consultation with Governor of the concerned State. However, law enacted by Parliament will be required if the list of backward classes is to be amended.

    ————————————//————————————————-

    BACK2BASICS

    • 102nd Constitution Amendment Act, 2018 provides constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
    • The Commission consists of five members including a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and three other Members appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal. It has the authority to examine complaints and welfare measures regarding socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Previously NCBC was a statutory body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

     

  • Judicial federalism

    The article discusses the idea of judicial federalism and autonomy of the High Courts.

    Issue of transfer of cases from High Courts to Supreme Court

    • Under Article 139A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does have the power to transfer cases from the High Courts to itself if cases involve the same questions of law.
    • In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Supreme Court underlined that the right to emergency medical treatment is part of the citizen’s fundamental rights.
    • As such, constitutional courts owe a duty to protect this right.
    • In the face of a de facto COVID-19 health emergency, the High Courts of Delhi, Gujarat, Madras and Bombay, among others, have done exactly that.
    • These High Courts among others have directed the state governments on various issues related to COVID-19 health emergency.
    • However, Supreme Court issued an order asking the State governments and the Union Territories to “show cause why uniform orders” should not be passed by the Supreme Court.
    • Therefore, the Supreme Court indicated the possibility of the transfer of cases to itself.

    Issues with the SC’s move

    • According to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, public health and hospitals come under the State List as Item No. 6.
    • There could be related subjects coming under the Union List or Concurrent List.
    • Also, there may be areas of inter-State conflicts.
    • But as of now, the respective High Courts have been dealing with specific challenges at the regional level, the resolution of which does not warrant the top court’s interference.
    • In addition to the geographical reasons, the constitutional scheme of the Indian judiciary is pertinent.
    •  In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court itself said that the High Courts are “institutions endowed with glorious judicial traditions” since they “had been in existence since the 19th century”.
    • Even otherwise, in a way, the power of the High Court under Article 226 is wider than the Supreme Court’s under Article 32.
    • This position was reiterated by the court soon after its inception in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (1951).
    • Judicial federalism has intrinsic and instrumental benefits which are essentially political.
    • The United States is an illustrative case.
    • The U.S. Supreme Court reviews “only a relative handful of cases from state courts” which ensures “a large measure of autonomy in the application of federal law” for the State courts.
    • The need for a uniform judicial order across India is warranted only when it is unavoidable — for example, in cases of an apparent conflict of laws or judgments on legal interpretation.
    • Otherwise, autonomy, not uniformity, is the rule.
    • Decentralisation, not centrism, is the principle.

    Consider the question “Under Article 139A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does have the power to transfer cases from the High Courts to itself if cases involve the same questions of law. However, transferring such cases should not impinge on judicial federalism. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    In the COVID-19-related cases, High Courts across the country have acted with an immense sense of judicial responsibility. This is a legal landscape that deserves to be encouraged. To do this, the Supreme Court must simply stay away.

  • Need for diversity and propriety in judiciary

    The article highlights the issue of women representation and its implications for the role of the judiciary.

    Improving representation of women

    • Presently, the Supreme Court is left with only one woman judge, who is also going to retire next year, after which, the SC will be left without a woman judge.
    • The collegium failed to take timely steps to elevate more women judges in the SC.
    • In the 71 years of history of the SC, there have been only eight women judges — the first was Justice Fathima Beevi, who was elevated to the bench after a long gap of 39 years from the date of establishment of the SC.
    • In the submissions filed by the AG on the issue states that improving the representation of women in the judiciary could go a long way towards attaining a more balanced and empathetic approach in cases involving sexual violence.
    • The AG also brought up the fact that there has never been a woman Chief Justice of India (CJI).

    Women representation in developed countries

    • The situation is not any different in developed countries such as the US, UK, Ireland, France and China.
    • According to the data collected by Smashboard, a New Delhi and Paris-based NGO, not only has no woman ever been appointed as the CJI, the representation of women across different courts and judicial bodies is also abysmally low.

    Way forward

    • In the last few meetings of the collegium, there has been some talk of promoting women to the apex court.
    • In this regard, if Justice B V Nagaratha of the Karnataka High Court is elevated to the Supreme Court, she could become the first woman CJI in February 2027.
    • But her elevation will lead to the supersession of 32 senior judges.
    •  Supersession itself is perceived as a threat to an independent judiciary
    • Seniority combined with merit is the sacrosanct criteria for promotion in the judiciary.
    • New CJI should secure the trust of members of his collegium to fill the backlog of 411 vacancies across high courts and six vacancies in the SC.

    Consider the question “What are the various structural issues faced by the judiciary in India? Suggest the measures to deal with them.”

    Conclusion

    A greater number of women in the Supreme Court would eventually lead to a woman CJI. This would be a gratifying change, which may mark the beginning of a new era of judicial appointments.

  • Need to address the systemic issues plaguing the judiciary

    The article highlights the issues facing the judiciary in India and emphasises the need for addressing these issues.

    Separating judiciary from the executive

    • Today, the judiciary, especially the SC, is called upon to decide a large number of cases in which the government has a direct interest.
    • These can be politically sensitive cases too.
    • The framers of the Constitution understood the importance of the oath of office of judges of the Supreme Court of India (SC) and carefully designed its language.
    • The words, “without fear or favour” to “uphold the constitution and the laws” are extremely significant and stress the need for a fiercely independent court.
    • Article 50 of the Constitution provides: “The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”

    Master of roaster issue

    • The Chief Justice of India is the first amongst the equals but by the virtue of his office assumes significant powers as the Master of the Roster to constitute benches and allocate matters.
    • The SC has re-affirmed this position in a rather disappointing decision in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018).
    • The result has been catastrophic.
    • Many matters were either treated casually or deflected for no reason from serious hearing.

    Accountability from legislature and executive

    • The SC is expected to seek strict accountability from the legislature and executive and any infraction of the Constitution and laws must be corrected.
    • Yet, this is not happening.
    • A country of billion-plus needs its highest court to stand for the people, not seemingly for the executive of the day.

    Inherent and fundamental challenges

    • The judiciary is besieged by inherent and fundamental challenges.
    • Millions of pending cases, quality of judges and their decisions, organisational issues and its integrity and impartiality, need urgent attention.
    • Yet, in the last two decades precious little has been done.
    • Justice is eluding the common man, including the vulnerable sections of society.

    Way forward

    • The new Chief Justice must seriously introspect and free himself of the bias in constituting benches and allocating cases and take concrete steps to revitalise the administration of justice.
    • Only then will the rule of law be restored and the Constitution served.

    Consider the question “Examine the inherent and fundamental challenges faced by the judiciary in India. Suggest the measures to deal with these challenges.” 

    Conclusion

    The Chief Justice of India on account of the position he holds as paterfamilias of the judicial fraternity, was suspected by none other than Dr B R Ambedkar. Let us hope the new Chief Justice makes serious efforts to prove otherwise.

  • SC paves way for appointment of ad-hoc judges in HCs

    Appointment of retired judges under Article 224A

    • The Supreme Court cleared the way for appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges in High Courts under Article 224A of the Constitution.
    • The court ruled that the Chief Justice of a High Court may initiate the process of recommending a name if the number of judges’ vacancies is more than 20 per cent of the sanctioned strength.
    • The court said the appointments can follow the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges.
    • The move will help to deal with mounting backlog of cases.
    • Since the nominees have been judges before, the need to refer the matter to the IB or other agencies would not arise, shortening the time period.

    Back2Basics: About Article 224A

    • It allows the Chief Justice of a High Court to allow a retired judge of any High Court to sit and act as the judge of the High Court for that State.
    • Previous consent of the President is necessary.
    • The acting retired judge would be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court.
    • This Article was not part of the Constitution of India, 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.

  • Supreme Court sets timeline for Govt to clear judges’ names

    Why the timeline

    • The Supreme Court laid down a timeline for the Centre to clear names recommended by the High Court Collegiums.
    • The Bench noted that there are almost 40% vacancies in the High Courts, with many of the larger High Courts working under 50% of their sanctioned strength.
    • Against the sanctioned strength of 1,080 High Court Judges, 664 have been appointed but 416 vacancies remain. 
    • The Bench rejected the contention that laying down a timeline “would be contrary to” certain “observations made in the Third Judges case”, saying the “observations” referred to “deal with the judicial review of a particular appointment and not such aspects of the appointment process like delay”.

    The timeline

    • The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/ inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government.
    • It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/ recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/ input from the IB.
    • It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly, if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest, within the same period of time it may be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium with the specific reasons for reservation recorded.
    • If the Supreme Court Collegium, after consideration of the aforesaid inputs, still reiterates the recommendation(s) unanimously
, such appointment should be processed and appointment should be made within 3 to 4 weeks.

  • Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE)

    The Supreme Court has unveiled its Artificial Intelligence (AI) portal SUPACE, designed to make research easier for judges, thereby easing their workload.

    SUPACE

    • A pet project of the former Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, the SUPACE is a tool that collects relevant facts and laws and makes them available to a judge.
    • The Supreme Court’s system is not designed to take decisions, but only to process facts and to make them available to judges looking for input for a decision.
    • The CJI had then said that AI is to the intellect, what muscle memory is to the mind.

    Its’ utility

    • SUPACE will produce results customized to the need of the case and the way the judge thinks.
    • This will be time-saving. It will help the judiciary and the court in reducing delays and pendency of cases.
    • AI will present a more streamlined, cost-effective and time-bound means to the fundamental right of access to justice.
    • It will make the service delivery mechanism transparent and cost-efficient.

  • Lok Adalats

    The article highlights the important role played by the Lok Adalats in dispute resolution and raises concerns over underminig of justice for the sake of speedy disposal.

    Background of Lok Adalat

    • The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, inserted Article 39A to ensure “equal justice and free legal aid”.
    • To this end, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was enacted by Parliament and it came into force in 1995.
    • The Act seeks “to provide free and competent legal services to weaker sections of the society” and to “organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity”.
    • As an alternative dispute resolution tool, Lok Adalats are regularly organised to help parties reach a compromise.
    • Motor-accident claims, disputes related to public-utility services, cases related to dishonour of cheques, and land, labour and matrimonial disputes (except divorce) are usually taken up by Lok Adalats.

    Significance of Lok Adalats

    • As per the National Judicial Data Grid, 16.9% of all cases in district and taluka courts are three to five years old.
    • For High Courts, 20.4% of all cases are five to 10 years old, and over 17% are 10-20 years old.
    • Furthermore, over 66,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court, over 57 lakh cases before various HCs, and over 3 crore cases are pending before various district and subordinate courts.
    • Moreover, Lok Adalats are economically affordable, as there are no court fees for placing matters before the Lok Adalat; finality of awards, as no further appeal is allowed.
    • As a result, litigants are forced to approach Lok Adalats mainly because it is a party-driven process, allowing them to reach an amicable settlement.

    Why Lok Adalats are fast

    • When compared to litigation, and even other dispute resolution devices, such as arbitration and mediation, Lok Adalats offer parties speed of settlement.
    • Cases are disposed of in a single day.
    • The speed is due to procedural flexibility, as there is no strict application of procedural laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
    • More importantly, the award issued by a Lok Adalat, after the filing of a joint compromise petition, has the status of a civil court decree.

    Some figures about cases disposed

    • In 2015 and 2016, ten National Lok Adalats (NLAs) were held each year that disposed of 1,83,09,401 and 1,04,98,453 cases respectively.
    • In 2017 and 2018, the number of NLAs dropped to five, with 54,05,867 and 58,79,691 cases settled respectively.
    • In 2019, four NLAs were organised, and they disposed of 52,93,273 cases.
    • In 2015, the average number of cases settled per NLA was 18,30,940, which came down to 10,81,174 in 2017, but rose to 11,75,939 in 2018, and 13,23,319 cases in 2019.
    • This throws up questions about the efficiency of NLAs.
    • The data show that the average number of cases disposed of per NLA since 2017 has gone up even when the number of NLAs organised each year has reduced.
    • This proves that on average, the system is certainly efficient.

    Concerns

    • The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs Jalour Singh (2008), held that a Lok Adalat is purely conciliatory and it has no adjudicatory or judicial function.
    • As compromise is its central idea, there is a concern that in the endeavour for speedy disposal of cases, it undermines the idea of justice.
    •  In a majority of cases, litigants are pitted against entities with deep pockets, such as insurance companies, banks, electricity boards, among others.
    •  In many cases, compromises are imposed on the poor who often have no choice but to accept them.
    • Similarly, poor women under the so-called ‘harmony ideology’ of the state are virtually dictated by family courts to compromise matrimonial disputes under a romanticised view of marriage.
    •  Even a disaster like the Bhopal gas tragedy was coercively settled for a paltry sum, with real justice still eluding thousands of victims.

    Consider the question “Examine the significance of Lok Adalats as an alternative dispute resolution tool. What are the concerns with speedy disposal of cases by Lok Adalats?”

    Conclusion

    A just outcome of a legal process is far more important than expeditious disposal, so what we need is concrete and innovative steps in improving the quality of justice rendered by National Lok Adalats.