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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • Judiciary and the challenges ahead

    The article analyses the role of the judiciary in democracy and the challenges it has been facing.

    Challenges to democracy

    • Growing lack of faith among many Indians in the functioning of the Supreme Court (SC).
    • The politicisation of the civil service and the police.
    • The creation of a cult of personality
    • The intimidation of the media.
    • The use of tax and investigative agencies to harass and intimidate independent voices.
    • The refusal to do away with repressive colonial-era laws and instead the desire to strengthen them.
    • The undermining of Indian federalism by the steady whittling down of the powers of the states by the Centre.

    Role and challenges judiciary faces

    • In recent years the Supreme Court has done little to stop or stem the degradation of democracy.
    • Some examples: Court’s refusal to strike down laws like UAPA that should have no place in a constitutional democracy.
    • Its unconscionable delay in hearing major cases.
    • The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated trend towards authoritarianism and the centralisation of power.
    • But the hearings and orders of the past few months show, the Supreme Court seems unable or unwilling to check these ominous trends.
    • The failure of the SC is in part a failure of leadership.
    • One chief justice has accepted a Governorship immediately on retirement, and another has accepted a Rajya Sabha seat.
    • Powers of the Master of the Roster are imperfectly defined, and can lead themselves to widespread misuse by the incumbent.

    Consider the question “Examine the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. What are the challenges judiciary facing the judiciary in recent times?”

    Conclusion

    Time has come for all the serving justices in the highest court of the land to think seriously about the ever-increasing gap between their calling as defined by the Constitution, and the direction the Court is now taking.

  • Issue of contempt of court

    The concept of contempt of court has been in the news recently. This article analyses the issue and draws on the approach adopted by the British judiciary.

    Issues with the concept of contempt

    • The concept of contempt is a centuries-old British law abolished in 2013.
    • At the time the British Law Commission said that one of the intentions for contempt of court was to hide judicial corruption.
    • The concept, therefore, clashed with the need for transparency but also freedom of speech.

    Let’s look into some comment’s from judges

    • In1968, a British judge, had this to say of the Law of Contempt “We will not use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. “
    • In a 2008 lecture by Justice Markandey Katju noted that “The test to determine whether an act amounts to contempt of court or not is this: Does it make the functioning of judges impossible or extremely difficult? If it does not, then it does not amount to contempt of court even if it’s harsh criticism”.

    Way forward

    • Whilst justice is important, judges must not take themselves too seriously.
    • Even if their amour propre is offended, it does not mean the institution has been questioned or justice brought into disrepute.
    • Judges deliver justice, they do not embody it.
    • They should never forget their Court is supreme because it’s final not because it’s infallible.
    • When they lapse they can be criticised, but of course, politely and fairly.

    Conclusion

    Indian Supreme Court hopefully pay attention to this aspect while delivering the judgement on the contempt cases.

  • Explained: What is Contempt of Court?

    Contempt of court, as a concept is back in the news after the proceeding by the Supreme Court of India, on its own motion, against a senior Delhi-based advocate-activist.

    Try this question for mains:

    Q.What is Contempt of Court? Discuss, how free speech can lead to the contempt of courts?

    What is Contempt of Court?

    • It seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority.

    How did the concept of contempt come into being?

    • The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old.
    • In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by him, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name.
    • Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.
    • Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

    What is the statutory basis for contempt of court?

    • There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India. Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws.
    • When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
    • Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself.
    • Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
    • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

    What are the kinds of contempt of court?

    The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal.

    • Civil contempt is fairly simple. It is committed when someone willfully disobeys a court order or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to the court. However, Criminal contempt is more complex.
    • It consists of three forms: (a) words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court (b) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding and (c) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
    • The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
    • The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months and/or a fine of up to â‚č. 2,000.

    What does not account to contempt?

    • Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court.
    • Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.

    Is truth a defence against a contempt charge?

    • For many years, the truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt.
    • There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution.
    • The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence if it was in the public interest and was invoked in a bonafide

  • The issue of powers of Speaker and Court

    The article examines the larger issue of powers of the Speaker under 10th Schedule and the current interim order of the Rajasthan High Court.

    Context

    • The Rajasthan High Court had admitted the petition by the Congress faction group challenging the notice of the Speaker.
    • In the interim order, the High Court had ordered to maintain the status quo.

    Why Kihoto Hollohan Case matters

    • The Kihoto Hollohan decision of the Supreme Court delivered in 1992 forms the basis in such decisions.
    • The Constitution Bench which heard it was split 3:2.
    • The majority on the bench upheld the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
    • The High Court is not empowered to unsettle Kihota Hollohan and must apply its ratio that the Chairman/Speaker is the final arbiter on the disqualification of a member.
    • Rajasthan High Court has raised the issue about whether disqualification under Tenth Schedule is applicable in the case of “intra-party dissent”.
    • Para 2(1) a of 10th Schedule deals with disqualification of a member of a House belonging to any party “if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party”.

    Let’s look at what the Supreme Court said  in Kihoto Hollohan case:

    “paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is valid. Its provisions do not suffer from the vice of subverting democratic rights of elected members of Parliament and the legislatures of the States. It does not violate their freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience as contended”.

    Consider the question “Examine the issue of powers of Speaker/Chairman in the matters of disqualification of the member against the powers of the Courts in such matters. What are the reasons for frequent frictions between the two authorities on this matter?”

    Conclusion

    The high courts and the Supreme Court routinely refuse to interfere in matters where the concerned authority has merely issued a show-cause notice or granted an opportunity of being heard. So, it must fix the issue raised by the Rajasthan High Court interim order.

  • Issues with contempt of court

    The article discusses the issues that law for contempt of the court give rise to. The practice has monarchical origins. Its continuance conflicts with the ideals of democracy. 

    Objective

    • The objective for contempt is stated to be to safeguard the interests of the public if the authority of the Court is denigrated and public confidence in the administration of justice is weakened or eroded.
    •  Need to “respect the authority and dignity of the court” has monarchical origins.

    Issues in India

    • With adjudicatory role having been handed over to judges, showing extreme deference to judges does not sit well with the idea of a democracy.
    • But the definition of criminal contempt in India is extremely wide, and can be easily invoked.
    •  Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously termed the law of contempt as having a vague and wandering jurisdiction, contempt law may unwittingly trample upon civil liberties.
    • Criminal contempt is completely asynchronous with our democratic system which recognises freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right.
    • Excessively loose use of the test of ‘loss of public confidence’, combined with a liberal exercise of suo motu powers, can be dangerous.
    •  It can amount to the Court signalling that it will not suffer any kind of critical commentary about the institution at all.

    Lessons from other democracies

    • Contempt has practically become obsolete in foreign democracies.
    • Canada ties its test for contempt to real, substantial and immediate dangers to the administration.
    • American courts also no longer use the law of contempt in response to comments on judges or legal matters.
    • In England, too, the legal position has evolved.

    Approach of Indian judiciary

    • Truth and good faith were not recognised as valid defences until 2006, when the Contempt of Courts Act was amended.
    • Indian courts have not been inclined to display the same maturity and unruffled spirit as their peers in the other democracies.

    Consider the question  “A law for criminal contempt is completely asynchronous with our democratic system which recognises freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right. Examine the issue in India context and suggest the major to strike the balance.”

    Conclusion

    Besides needing to revisit the need for a law on criminal contempt, even the test for contempt needs to be evaluated. If such a test ought to exist at all, it should be whether the contemptuous remarks in question actually obstruct the Court from functioning. It should not be allowed to be used as a means to prevent any and all criticism of an institution.

  • Relations between judiciary and legislature

    The article discusses the relation between the judiciary and the legislature. Recent development in Rajasthan assembly serves as the backdrop.

    Context

    • The political tussle in Rajasthan entered the High Court and the Supreme Court.
    • The Supreme Court itself proposed to rule on the larger question of the jurisdiction of courts to entertain such pleas.

    Historical background

    • The President of India made a presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the relative powers of legislative assemblies and constitutional courts.
    • The Supreme Court held that there is a broad separation of essential powers of each organ of the State.
    • However, the Court went on to hold that a judge who entertains a petition challenging any order of the legislature does not commit contempt of the said legislature.
    • Since then court have restrained themselves from interfering in the workings of legislative assemblies or Parliament is concerned.
    • The sole exception is under the anti-defection law-after a final order of disqualification has been passed.

    Let’s look into Kihoto Hollohan’s case

    • Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 1992 held that the Speaker acting in a disqualification matter acts as a tribunal and is subject to judicial review.
    • However, the same judgment makes it clear that the Court will not intervene at an interim stage.
    • The same judgment further holds the Speakers/Chairmen hold a pivotal position in the scheme of Parliamentary democracy and are guardians of the rights and privileges of the House.

    Let’s now look into Rajasthan episode

    • In this case, issuance of a possible disqualification notice by the Speaker, has been contested in constitutional courts.
    •  Even in routine petitions against notices of proposed administrative actions, the petitioner is told to answer the show cause notice and to challenge the final action only.
    • The Rajasthan High Court, however, entertained a petition to challenge the Speaker’s authority to decide, if MLAs had committed an act of defection.
    • The Rajasthan High Court reserved its judgment, requested the Speaker to defer further proceedings and proceeded to direct him to await judgment.

    Co-equality of Constitutional authorities

    • Rajasthan assembly Speaker moved the Supreme Court, questioning the court’s power to direct a Constitutional authority.
    • The principle of law applied is that Constitutional authorities cannot issue directions to each other.
    • They can, at best, make a polite request.
    • The single judge in Calcutta, recorded in his judgment that the Supreme Court was only co-equal with the High Court, as a Constitutional Court.
    • Appellate powers of the Supreme Court did not make it a superior authority to which the High Court was subordinate.
    • Ever since, the Supreme Court has been careful to couch its orders as requests to any High Court, or Constitutional authority.
    • Constitutional courts have followed the same principle, in addressing other Constitutional authorities.

    Role of judiciary in maintaining the balance

    • Unnecessary conflict between organs of state may well invite some Speaker, backed by a solid majority at State and Centre, to defy the courts.
    • Courts are apolitical but keep getting pulled into political thickets, especially in matters of mass defections resulting in regime change.
    • The walls of separation between constitutional organs, once breached, cannot be then repaired against future intrusions.

    Consider the question “Analyse fine balance Indian Consitution strikes between the various Constitutional authorities. Also examine how role of judiciary in dealing with the anti-defection law.”

    Conclusion

    Even under a sovereign Constitution, parliamentary and legislative supremacy in their areas of working must be respected.

  • What is Plea Bargaining and how does it work?

    Many members of a religious faction belonging to different countries have obtained release from court cases in recent days by means of plea bargaining. They were accused of violating visa conditions by attending a religious congregation in Delhi.

    Try this question for mains:

    Q.What is Plea Bargaining and how does it work? Discuss the rationale behind and benefits in reducing the burden on Judiciary.

    What is Plea Bargaining?

    • Plea bargaining refers to a person charged with a criminal offence negotiating with the prosecution for a lesser punishment than what is provided in law by pleading guilty to a less serious offence.
    • It is common in the US and has been a successful method of avoiding protracted and complicated trials.
    • As a result, conviction rates are significantly high there. It primarily involves pre-trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecutor.
    • It may involve bargaining on the charge or in the quantum of sentence.

    When was it introduced in India?

    • In India, the concept was not part of law until 2006. It was introduced in 2006 as part of a set of amendments to the CrPC as Chapter XXI-A, containing Sections 265A to 265L.
    • There has always been a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for an accused to plead ‘guilty’ instead of claiming the right to a full trial, but it is not the same as plea bargaining.
    • The Law Commission of India, in its 142nd Report, mooted the idea of “concessional treatment” of those who plead guilty on their own volition but was careful to underscore that it would not involve any plea bargaining or “haggling” with the prosecution.

    How does it work?

    • Unlike in the U.S. and other countries, where the prosecutor plays a key role the Indian code makes plea bargaining a process that can be initiated only by the accused.
    • Further, the accused will have to apply to the court for invoking the benefit of bargaining.

    In what circumstances is it allowed?

    • Cases for which the practice is allowed are limited.
    • Only someone who has been charge-sheeted for an offence that does not attract the death sentence, life sentence or a prison term above seven years can make use of the scheme under Chapter XXI-A.
    • It is also applicable to private complaints of which a criminal court has taken cognizance.
    • Other categories of cases that cannot be disposed of through plea bargaining are those that involve offences affecting the “socio-economic conditions” of the country or committed against a woman or a child below 14.

    How to avail this?

    • The applicant should approach the court with a petition and affidavit stating that it is a voluntary preference and that he has understood the nature and extent of punishment provided in law for the offence.
    • The court would then issue a notice to the prosecutor and the complainant or victim, if any, for a hearing.
    • The voluntary nature of the application must be ascertained by the judge in an in-camera hearing at which the other side should not be present.
    • Thereafter, the court may permit the prosecutor, the investigating officer and the victim to hold a meeting for a “satisfactory disposition of the case”.
    • The outcome may involve payment of compensation and other expenses to the victim by the accused.

    After approval

    • Once mutual satisfaction is reached, the court shall formalize the arrangement by way of a report signed by all the parties and the presiding officer.
    • The accused may be sentenced to a prison term that is half the minimum period fixed for the offence.
    • If there is no minimum term prescribed, the sentence should run up to one-fourth of the maximum sentence stipulated in the law.

    What is the rationale for the scheme? What are its benefits?

    • The Justice Malimath Committee on reforms of the criminal justice system endorsed the various recommendations of the Law Commission with regard to plea bargaining.
    • Some of the advantages it culled out from earlier reports are that the practice would ensure a speedy trial, end uncertainty over the outcome of criminal cases, save litigation costs and relieve the parties of anxiety.
    • It would also have a dramatic impact on conviction rates.
    • Prolonged incarceration of undertrials without any progress and overcrowding of prisons were also other factors that may be cited in support of reducing pendency of cases and decongesting prisons.
    • Moreover, it may help offenders make a fresh start in life.

    Do courts have reservations?

    • Case law after the introduction of plea bargaining has not developed much as the provision is possibly not used adequately.
    • However, earlier judgments of various courts in cases in which the accused enter a ‘guilty’ plea with a view to getting lesser sentences indicate that the judiciary may have reservations.
    • Some verdicts disapprove of bargaining with offenders, and point out those lenient sentences could be considered as part of the circumstances of the case after a regular trial.
    • Courts are also very particular about the voluntary nature of the exercise, as poverty, ignorance and prosecution pressure should not lead to someone pleading guilty of offences that may not have been committed.

  • Padmanabhaswamy Temple Verdict by the Supreme Court

    Reversing the 2011 Kerala High Court decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Travancore royal family to manage the property of deity at Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.

    Try this question from CSP 2016:

    Q.In the context of the history of India, consider the following pairs

    Term              Description
    1.  Eripatti Land, revenue from which was set apart for the maintenance of the village tank
    2. Taniyurs Villages donated to a single Brahmin or a group of Brahmins
    3. Ghatikas Colleges generally attached to the temples

    Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

    a) 1 and 2

    b) 3 only

    c) 2 and 3

    d) 1 and 3

    What did the apex Court say?

    • The court said that as per customary law, the shebait rights (right to manage the financial affairs of the deity) survive with the members of the family even after the death of the last ruler.
    • The ruling ends the legal battle the temple and members of the royal family have fought with the government for decades over control of one of the richest temples in the world.

    What is the case about?

    • The central legal question was whether the heirs of the last Ruler of Travancore could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” after the death of the ruler in 1991.
    • The court examined this claim within the limited meaning of that term according to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 to claim ownership, control and management of the ancient Temple.

    Earlier cases of ownership: A background

    • All the temples which were under the control and management of the erstwhile Princely States of Travancore and Cochin were under the control of the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards before 1947.
    • However, as per the Instrument of Accession signed, since 1949, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was “vested in trust” in the Ruler of Travancore.
    • The state of Kerala was carved out in 1956 but the temple continued to be managed by the erstwhile royals.

    The legal battle

    • In 1971, privy purses to the former royals were abolished through a constitutional amendment stripping their entitlements and privileges.
    • The move was upheld in court in 1993 and the last ruler of Travancore who died during the pendency of this case continued to manage the affairs of the temple till then.
    • In 1991, when the last ruler’s brother took over the temple management, it created a furore among devotees who moved the courts leading to a long-drawn legal battle.

    Is the temple the property of the royal family?

    • The character of the temple was always recognised as a public institution governed by a statute.
    • The argument of the royal family is that the temple management would vest with them for perpetuity, as per custom.
    • Even though the last ruler executed a detailed will bequeathing his personal properties, he had not included the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as his personal property or dealt with it in his will.

    What about the treasure in the vaults?

    • A consequence of who has administrative rights over the temple is whether the vaults of the temple will be opened.
    • In 2007, the heir claimed that the treasures of the temple were the family property of the royals.
    • Several suits were filed objecting to this claim and a lower court in Kerala passed an injunction against the opening of the vaults.
    • The Kerala High Court in the 2011 ruling passed an order that a board be constituted to manage the affairs of the temple, ruling against the royal family.

    What impact would this ruling have?

    • Since 2011, the process of opening the vaults has led to the discovery of treasures within the Padmanabhaswamy temple, prompting a debate on who owns temple property and how it should be regulated.
    • Despite being a secular country that separates religion from the affairs of the state, Hindu temples, its assets are governed through statutory laws and boards heavily controlled by state governments.
    • This system came into being mainly through the development of a legal framework to outlaw untouchability by treating temples as public land; it has resulted in many legal battles.

  • Making justice accessible through live streaming

    Livestreaming of the judicial proceeding goes a long way in increasing the access of justice which is granted under Article 21. This article examines the evolution in judiciary and making justice accessible.

    Judiciary adapting to changes

    •  As the lockdown began, the Court had to quickly find the technology and create protocols for virtual courts and e-hearings.
    • Before this, there was an open courtroom that the public could access.
    • This protected the right to access justice, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    Access to justice without physical classroom

    • Now that the Court is proactively adopting technology, it must expand the right of access to justice by live-streaming proceedings.
    • Further, court proceedings must also be documented and preserved for future generations.
    • Both audio-visual recordings and transcripts of oral arguments should be maintained for this purpose.

    Evolution of access to court

    • The Supreme Court maintained no public record of its own proceedings in the past.
    • Nor were its proceedings broadcast live for public viewing.
    • Over time, security concerns meant that the public could only enter courtrooms in the SC with a pass.
    • Due to space constraints, law students were not permitted to enter courtrooms on Mondays and Fridays when the Court heard fresh matters.

    A case that led to live broadcast of the proceedings

    • In its 2018 judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, the Court recommended that proceedings be broadcast live.
    • The SC held that live streaming proceedings is part of the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
    •  Justice DY Chandrachud noted that open courts help foster public confidence in the judiciary.
    • Further, publishing court proceedings is an aspect of Article 129, per which the Supreme Court is a court of record.
    • Journalists, young lawyers, civil society activists and academics would all benefit from live streaming, the Court opined.
    • The guidelines proposed live-streaming cases of constitutional and national importance as a pilot project including Constitution Bench cases.
    • Matrimonial cases and those involving national security could be excluded.

    Recording the proceedings- Examples

    • Internationally constitutional court proceedings are recorded in some form or the other.
    • In Australia, proceedings are recorded and posted on the high court’s website.
    • Proceedings of the Supreme Courts of Brazil, Canada, England and Germany are broadcast live.
    • The Supreme Court of the US does not permit video recording, but oral arguments are recorded, transcribed, and available publicly.
    • Democracies aside, in China, court proceedings are live streamed from trial courts up to the Supreme People’s Court of China.

    India stands alone

    • India stands alone amongst leading constitutional democracies in not maintaining audio or video recordings or even a transcript of court proceedings.
    • Court hearings can be turning points in the life of a nation: ADM Jabalpur comes readily to mind.
    • More recently, there are a number of cases where the Supreme Court’s judgments have changed citizens’ lives — Aadhaar, Section 377, Sabarimala, NRC and the triple talaq judgments are among them.

    Steps to make justice accessible

    • The Court started providing vernacular translations of its judgments.
    • Non-accredited journalists were permitted to live-tweet court proceedings.
    • During the lockdown, journalists have been permitted to view virtual court proceedings in real time.
    • If that technology is available, it could be extended to members of the public, who can then view court proceedings themselves.
    • Due to pandemic for the next few years, Indian courts will have to adopt a combination of virtual and in-person hearings.

    Consider the question “Live-streaming and recordings of the court proceeding helps in reinforcing the public faith in the judiciary. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    Openness and transparency reinforce the public’s faith in the judicial system. Livestreaming and recording of the proceeding will open the door to ensure the same.

  • Over 42,000 undertrials released to unclog prisons: NALSA report

    Legal services institutions have intervened to release 42,529 undertrial prisoners as well as 16,391 convicts on parole to de-congest prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic, a report from NALSA has said.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. More than a century-old system of prisons in India needs urgent repair. Discuss with context to the increase in the cases of undertrials.

    Decongesting the prison

    • There are 1,339 prisons with approximately 4, 66,084 inmates in India with the rate of occupancy at Indian prisons at 117.6% (a/c to NCRB).
    • The report stated that 243 undertrial prisoners had been granted bail and 9,558 persons in remand had been given legal representation across the country.
    • It said the highest number of undertrial prisoners released was 9,977 in Uttar Pradesh, followed by 5,460 in Rajasthan and 4,547 in Tamil Nadu, 3,698 in Punjab and 3,400 in Maharashtra.
    • Note: Prisons/ Prisoners/persons detained is a State subject under Entry 4 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

    Hardships of the undertrials

    • Right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the principles of fair trial and is fundamental to the international human rights discourse.
    • In Indian jails, most of the prisoners are undertrials, which are confined to the jails until their case comes to a definite conclusion.
    • In most of the cases, they end up spending more time in the jail than the actual term that might have had been awarded to them had the case been decided on a time and, assuming, against them.
    • Plus, the expenses and pain and agony of defending themselves in courts is worse than serving the actual sentence. Undertrials are not guilty till convicted.
    • In 2017, the Law Commission of India had recommended that undertrials who have completed a third of their maximum sentence for offences attracting up to seven years of imprisonment be released on bail.

    About NALSA

    • National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) was formed on 9 November 1995 under the authority of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
    • Its purpose is to provide free legal services to eligible candidates and to organize Lok Adalats for the speedy resolution of cases.
    • The CJI is patron-in-chief of NALSA while second seniormost judge of Supreme Court of India is the Executive-Chairman.
    • There is a provision for similar mechanism at state and district level also headed by Chief Justice of High Courts and Chief Judges of District courts respectively.
    • The prime objective of NALSA is speedy disposal of cases and reducing the burden of the judiciary.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] Need of Prison Reforms