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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • [pib] Justice Ramana appointed as Chief Justice of India

    The President of India, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice NV Ramana, a Judge of the Supreme Court, to be the CJI.

    Chief Justice of India

    • The CJI is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India as well as the highest-ranking officer of the Indian federal judiciary.

    Appointment

    • The Constitution of India grants power to the President to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Parliament, appoint a chief justice, who serves until they reach the age of 65 or until removed by impeachment.
    • Earlier, it was a convention to appoint seniormost judges.
    • However, this has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding 3 senior judges.
    • Also, in 1977 Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna.

    Qualifications

    The Indian Constitution says in Article 124 (3) that in order to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court of India, the person has to fit in the following criteria:

    • He/She is a citizen of India and
    • has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist

    Functions

    • As head of the Supreme Court, the CJI is responsible for the allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches which deal with important matters of law.
    • In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure of 1966, the chief justice allocates all work to the other judges.

    On the administrative side, the CJI carries out the following functions:

    • maintenance of the roster; appointment of court officials and general and miscellaneous matters relating to the supervision and functioning of the Supreme Court

    Try this PYQ:

    Q. Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?

    (a) The President of India

    (b) The Prime Minister of India

    (c) The Lok Sabha Secretariat

    (d) The Supreme Court of India

    Removal

    • Article 124(4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court which is applicable to chief justices as well.
    • Once appointed, the chief justice remains in the office until the age of 65 years. He can be removed only through a process of removal by Parliament as follows:
    • He/She can be removed by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present.
    • The voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

    About Justice Ramana

    • Justice Ramana will take over as 48th Chief Justice of India.
    • He is a first-generation lawyer, having an agricultural background, and hails from Ponnavaram Village, Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh.
    • He is an avid reader and literature enthusiast. He is passionate about Carnatic music.

    His legal career

    • He was called on to the Bar on 10.02.1983.
    • Initially, he was appointed as a Permanent Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court on 27.06.2000. He also functioned as Acting Chief Justice of his parent High Court from 10.3.2013 to 20.5.2013.
    • He practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Central and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals, and the Supreme Court of India.
    • He specialized in Constitutional, Civil, Labour, Service, and Election matters. He has also practiced before Inter-State River Tribunals.
    • He served as Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 17.02.2014.
    • He has also served as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) since 27.11.2019.

  • Vacancies in High Courts

    The Supreme Court has asked the government to clarify on the status of 55 recommendations made by the Collegium for judicial appointments to various High Courts six months to nearly a year-and-a-half ago.

    What is the news?

    HC Vacancies

    • The total sanctioned judicial strength in the 25 High Courts is 1,080.
    • However, the present working strength is 661 with 419 vacancies as on March 1.
    • The Supreme Court has been repeatedly conveying to the government its growing alarm at the judicial vacancies in High Courts.
    • Some of these High Courts are functioning only with half their sanctioned judicial strength.
    • On average, the courts suffered at least 40% judicial vacancies.

    What is the 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.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

    1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
    2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    Answer: (d)

    The Judges Cases

    • The 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.
    • The 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.
    • 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 is 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

    • Many have faulted the system, not only for its being seen as something unforeseen by the Constitution makers but also for the way it functions.
    • Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Embroilment in public controversies and having relatives practising in the same High Court could be common reasons for transfers.

  • Justice NV Ramana set to take over as 48th CJI

    The Chief Justice of India Sharad Bobde has recommended Justice N.V. Ramana, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next top judge from April 24.

    Chief Justice of India

    • The CJI is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India as well as the highest-ranking officer of the Indian federal judiciary.

    Appointment

    • The Constitution of India grants power to the President to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Parliament, appoint a chief justice, who serves until they reach the age of 65 or until removed by impeachment.
    • Earlier, it was a convention to appoint seniormost judges.
    • However, this has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding 3 senior judges.
    • Also, in 1977 Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna.

    Qualifications to be a SC Judge

    The Indian Constitution says in Article 124 (3) that in order to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court of India, the person has to fit in the following criteria:

    • He/She is a citizen of India and
    • has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist

    Also read:

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/explained-collegium-of-judges/

    Functions

    • As head of the Supreme Court, the CJI is responsible for the allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches which deal with important matters of law.
    • In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure of 1966, the chief justice allocates all work to the other judges.

    On the administrative side, the CJI carries out the following functions:

    • maintenance of the roster; appointment of court officials and general and miscellaneous matters relating to the supervision and functioning of the Supreme Court

    Try this PYQ:

    Q. Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?

    (a) The President of India

    (b) The Prime Minister of India

    (c) The Lok Sabha Secretariat

    (d) The Supreme Court of India

    Removal

    • Article 124(4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court which is applicable to chief justices as well.
    • Once appointed, the chief justice remains in the office until the age of 65 years. He can be removed only through a process of removal by Parliament as follows:
    • He/She can be removed by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present.
    • The voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

  • Corrective voice from Supreme Court against stereotyping of women

    A judgment by the Supreme Court forbidding judges from making gender-stereotypical comments came as a corrective voice from within the highest judiciary.

    Q.Discuss the need for gender sensitization of the judicial institutions.

    What is the news?

    • The judgment came days after the CJI, during a virtual hearing reportedly asked an alleged rapist’s lawyer to enquire whether his client would marry the survivor.
    • His statement coincided with International Women’s Day.
    • Days later, a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat urged courts to avoid using reasoning/language which diminished a sexual offence and tended to trivialize the survivor.

    What did the Court say?

    • The greatest extent of sensitivity is to be displayed in the judicial approach, language and reasoning adopted by the judge.
    • Even a solitary instance of such order or utterance in court, reflects adversely on the entire judicial system of the country, undermining the guarantee to fair justice to all, and especially to victims of sexual violence.
    • This judgment is one among a series of interventions with which the apex court has clamped down on abuse and sex stereotyping of women.

    No institution is mightier than the modesty of a woman.

    SC against stereotyping

    Some of the notable judgments which have lashed out at sex stereotyping include:

    1. The framing of the Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment of women in working places, and
    2. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s historic judgment giving women Armed Forces officers’ equal access to Permanent Commission while debunking the establishment’s claim that women were physiologically weaker than men
    3. In the Anuj Garg case, the Supreme Court had rebuked “the notion of romantic paternalism”, which, “in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage”

    Avoid gender stereotypes such as:

    The courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that

    • women are physically weak and need protection;
    • men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family;
    • women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture;
    • “good” women are sexually chaste;
    • motherhood is the duty and role of every woman and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother;
    • being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked;
    • lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.

    Conclusion

    • Stereotyping compromises the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, which can, in turn, lead to miscarriages of justice, including the re-victimization of complainants.
    • Often judges adopt rigid standards about what they consider to be appropriate behaviour for women and penalize those who do not conform to these stereotypes.

    There should be gender sensitization

    • The court-mandated that a module on gender sensitization is included, as part of the foundational training of every judge.
    • This module must aim at imparting techniques for judges to be more sensitive in hearing and deciding cases of sexual assault, and eliminating entrenched social bias, especially misogyny.

  • Issues with Master of the Roaster power of CJI

    CJI’s power as Master of Roaster and issues with it

    • The Supreme Court recently closed the proceedings enquiring into a conspiracy to threaten the independence of the judiciary on the basis of sexual harassment allegations against the former CJI.
    • The singular power of the CJI as the Master of the Roster – i.e., the vests exclusive discretion in the Chief Justice to constitute benches and allocate cases.
    • While the CJI’s other powers such as recommending appointments to constitutional courts are shared with other senior judges, the power of Master of the Roster is enjoyed without scrutiny.
    • This power enabled Justice Gogoi to institute suo motu proceedings despite being an accused; label the case as a matter of judicial independence; and preside over it.
    • This power lay at the heart of the controversy surrounding the proceedings the Court has now closed.

    Implications for independence of judiciary

    • From the standpoint of judicial independence, the Master of the Roster power makes the CJI’s office a high stakes one.
    • It makes the CJI the sole point of defence of the Court against executive interference.
    • However, this has a flip side.
    • With the CJI as the sole Master of the Roster, any executive seeking to influence the Supreme Court needs only a pliant CJI.
    • Yet, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to dilute this power.
    • In Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018), a three-judge bench of the Court held that Master of the Roster is the CJI’s exclusive power.
    • Thereafter, a two-judge bench in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018) rejected the plea that the Master of the Roster should be interpreted as the collegium.

    Need for the reforms

    • The collegium system has failed to keep executive interferences at bay from the Supreme Court.
    • This is for two reasons:
    • First, as Justice Gogoi’s case shows, there is an attractive lure of post-retirement jobs.
    • Second, as the privilege of Master of the Roster shows, the CJI’s allocation of cases is an unchecked power.
    • The continuing project of judicial reforms should then address these two issues.

    Way forward

    • A cooling-off period between retirement and a post-retirement appointment has often been suggested as a way to deal with the first problem.
    • For the second, the power of Master of the Roster needs to be diversified beyond the CJI’s exclusive and untrammelled discretion.

    Consider the question “What are the issues with the Master of the Roaster power of the Chief Justice of India? Suggest the ways to deal with the issue.” 

    Conclusion

    We need to carry out these reforms make the judiciary less prone to interference from the executive.

  • POCSO doesn’t brook dilution

    The recent Bombay High Court judgement has raised controversy for its interpretation of certain Section of the POCSO Act. The article deals with this issue.

    Object of the POCSO Act

    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted in 2012 especially to protect children (aged less than 18) from sexual assault.
    • The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act admitted that a number of sexual offences against children were neither specifically provided for in extant laws nor adequately penalised.
    • The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by India in 1992, also requires sexual exploitation and sexual abuse to be addressed as heinous crimes.

    Issues with Bombay High Court’s Judgement

    • The Bench acquitted a man under the POCSO Act found guilty of assault on the grounds that he groped his victim over her clothes and there was no skin-to-skin contact between them.
    • As this judgment was likely to set a dangerous precedent, the apex court stayed the acquittal.
    • Section 7 of the POCSO Act, along with other things, says that whoever with sexual intent touches the breast of the child is said to commit sexual assault.
    • Whereas Section 8 of the Act provides minimum imprisonment of three years for sexual assault.
    • Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down a minimum of one year imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a woman.

    Difference between IPC and POCSO

    • The difference between POCSO and IPC, as far as the offence of sexual assault is concerned, is two-fold.
    • One, the definition of ‘assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’ given in the IPC is generic.
    • Whereas in POCSO, the acts of sexual assault are explicitly mentioned such as touching various private parts.
    • ‘Sexual assault’ in POCSO specifically excludes rape which requires penetration; otherwise the scope of ‘sexual assault’ under POCSO and ‘outraging modesty of a woman’ under the IPC is the same.
    • Two, whereas the IPC provides punishment for the offence irrespective of any age of the victim, POCSO is specific for the protection of children.
    • Higher punishment is provided under POCSO not because more serious allegations of sexual assault are required but because the legislature wanted punishment to be more deterrent if the victims are children.

    Conclusion

    In the absence of any specific provision in the POCSO Act which requires skin-to-skin touch as a mandatory element of an offence, any interpretation which dilutes protection to children must be declared ultra vires.

  • India Justice Report, 2020

    The second edition of the Indian Justice Report (IJR) was recently launched.

    Note the findings of this report. It is the only such report of its kind published in India.

    India Justice Report

    • The IJR is an initiative of Tata Trusts in collaboration with Centre for Social Justice, Common Cause and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative among others.
    • It was first published in 2019.
    • It brings together otherwise siloed statistics from authoritative government sources, on the four pillars of justice delivery – Police, Judiciary, Prisons and Legal Aid.

    Major highlights of the Report

    • The report highlights stark conclusions when aggregated for an all-India picture.
    • Women comprise only 29 per cent of judges in India.
    • Two-thirds of the country’s prisoners are yet to be convicted.
    • In the last 25 years, since 1995, only 1.5 crore people have received legal aid, though 80 per cent of the country’s population is entitled to.
    • The report gives ranks Maharashtra once again at the top of the 18 large- and mid-sized states (with a population of over one crore each), followed by Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Punjab and Kerala.
    • The list of seven small states (population of less than one crore each) was topped by Tripura, followed by Sikkim and Goa.

  • POCSO Act

    In a recent judgement, Section 7 of POCSO Act was interpreted in a controversial way by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. 

    Issue of the definition of sexual assault under POCSO Act

    • Recently, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that skin-to-skin contact is essential to constitute the offence defined under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
    • Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with outraging modesty of women and which provides for a lesser sentence, was held to be applicable in such cases.
    • This ruling raises several concerns.
    • The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights had asked the Maharashtra government to appeal this decision in the Supreme Court.
    • The Supreme Court has currently stayed the acquittal of the accused under this judgement.

    Concerns with the judgement

    • The Court held that the stringent nature of punishment provided for the offence required stricter proof and serious allegations.
    • The court said the punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime.
    • Nevertheless, while adjudging the seriousness of the offence the court has not given consideration to the fact that the victim, a minor, is entitled to greater protection.
    • The major concern is that the interpretation of the court seems to defeat the purpose of the POCSO Act.
    • Section 7 of POCSO defines sexual assault as “Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.”
    •  The court has concluded that the touching of the breast without skin-to-skin contact is not similar to the abovementioned acts and, therefore, does not fall within this definition.
    • The court seems to have followed a rather pedantic approach to reach this conclusion.
    • The fact that the trauma of the child whose breasts were groped through a cloth could be of the same nature and severity as direct touching of the breast is not discussed.
    • And if the trauma is the same, the mere existence of cloth should not affect the applicability of the POCSO Act.

    Legislative history and object of POCSO Act

    POCSO Act

    • The POCSO Act was enacted with the specific intention of protecting children from sexual assault and sexual harassment.
    • It took into consideration the standards prescribed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations to which the Indian government acceded to on December 11, 1992.
    • The Act acknowledges the special vulnerability of children and that special protection, above and beyond that provided in the IPC, is required when the victim is a child.

    Conclusion

    If such an interpretation is followed, there is a threat that the POCSO Act in itself might become redundant as a wide range of sexually violative activities would be excluded from its ambit due to lack of skin-to-skin contact.

  • Mercy petition

    The article highlights the issue of delay in carrying out the dealth penalty and issues associated with it.

    Review of India’s position on the death penalty

    • The delay in carrying out the death penalty is one of the reasons to review India’s position on capital punishment.
    • The debate on the efficacy of the death penalty in reducing crime has been going on for several decades.
    • A few years ago, the issue of abolishing capital punishment was raised in the Rajya Sabha but was rejected by a voice vote.
    • The then Minister of State for Home Affairs stated that the government was not contemplating abolition of the death penalty.
    • In 2015, the Law Commission of India proposed abolishing the death penalty and sought the comments of States and Union Territories on the subject.
    • India figures among the 56 nations in the world that have retained the death penalty.

    Issue of delay in carrying out the punishment

    • The prolonged detention of death row convicts in prison is not just inhuman but also against the canons of justice.
    • The delay coupled with long years of solitary confinement leads to immense psychological trauma.
    • It is small wonder that the courts tend to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence when such cases of prolonged years of detention come before them.
    • A time frame needs to be fixed for the President to dispose of mercy petitions.
    •  Delays in investigations, court hearings, and administrative steps to be taken after the final verdict need to be inquired into, and responsibility fixed.

    Consider the question “Against the backdrop of delay in carrying out the dealth penalty in India, take the review of India’s position on the abolition of death penalty.”

    Conclusion

    With the changing time, we must change and so do the way we punish people. Capital punishment should be abolished in the country and until then, the inordinate delays in carrying out punishment should be avoided.

  • Defending liberty against selective prosecution

    The article examines the issue of selective prosecution and Indian judiciary’s approach toward it. It also highlights the importance of recent Goswami case.

    Selective prosecution: Form of abuse of state power

    • Recently the case involving bail application of a T.V. anchor brought to the fore issue of selective prosecution.
    • The illegal selection of accused based on grounds prohibited by the Constitution is called “selective prosecution”.
    • In case of selective prosecution, the police and enforcement agencies selectively target political and ideological opponents of the ruling dispensation to interrogate, humiliate, harass, arrest, torture and imprison.
    • It is one of the oldest, most pernicious and widespread forms of abuse of state power.

    How it is illegal: Two independent legal issues

    1) Exercise of prosecutorial discretion

    • The applicable legal standard is that while the police and prosecutors in common law jurisdictions enjoy vast discretion in deciding who they may pursue and who they may spare.
    • However, the choice of accused must not be based on grounds that violate Constitutional rights, including the Article 14 right to equal protection of the law.
    • The accused should not be selected, either explicitly or covertly, on constitutionally prohibited grounds.

    2) Merit of the case filed

    • When the choice of accused runs contrary to the Constitution, the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated, irrespective of the determination of the second issue, viz., whether the accused are convicted or acquitted on the charges brought against them.
    • Once the proceedings fail under the first issue, there is no legal basis to proceed to the second issue., i.e., trial on the merits of the case.
    • The theory is that the Constitution cannot be violated to uphold the law — such an approach would spell doom for the Constitution.
    • The selective prosecution claim must be adjudicated as a threshold issue, with the prosecution being quashed at the outset of the criminal case if the claim is justified.
    • In the context of this discussion, the constitutionally prohibited ground we are confronting in India is the political or ideological affiliation of the accused.
    • It is an arbitrary ground that violates the Article 14 guarantee of equal protection of the law.

    Approach of judiciary

    • Our courts have not recognised selective prosecution as an independent claim.
    • This is because courts assume that lawfulness of prosecution can only be taken up after the trial, if the accused is acquitted.
    • The 2018 Report of the Law Commission on ‘Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies’ discusses remedies for wrongful prosecution available only if and after the accused is acquitted.
    • Remedy after acquittal comes far too late, well after a brutal and long drawn out criminal justice process that upends the lives of the victims.
    • Also, the right against selective prosecution cannot be extinguished by conviction.
    • Separate from post-acquittal actions for wrongful prosecution (which will still be available), the claim of selective prosecution is a threshold issue that is required to be adjudicated at the outset of criminal proceedings even during the investigation stage irrespective of the merit of the charges.

    Importance of Goswami case

    • The case provides a much needed and long awaited legal opening to strengthen the recognition and use of the selective prosecution claim in India to counter politically coloured prosecution.
    • The judgment says, “Courts should be alive to the needof ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment ”.
    • The Goswami judgment also quotes the 2018 Supreme Court holding in Romila Thapar v. Union of India that, “[T]he basic entitlement of every citizen who is faced with allegations of criminal wrongdoing is that the investigative process should be fair. This is an integral component of the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.”

    Consider the question “How selective prosecution could threten the liberty of person? How Indian judiciary approaches the issue of selective prosecution and what are the issue with the approach adopted by the judiciary?”

    Conclusion

    To strengthen the protection of civil liberty, equality and democracy, it is time our courts — at all levels — recognise selective prosecution as a threshold constitutional defence against the abuse of police and prosecutorial power.