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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Justice Surya Kant Sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI)

    Why in the News?

    Justice Surya Kant took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 24, 2025, administered by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

    About Justice Surya Kant

    • Born: 10 February 1962, Hisar, Haryana.
    • Youngest Advocate General of Haryana (appointed 2000).
    • Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court (2004).
    • Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court (2018).
    • Appointed to Supreme Court: 24 May 2019 (along with Justice B.R. Gavai).

    Tenure

    • Will serve until 2 February 2027 — a little over one year.

    Major Priorities as the 53rd CJI

    • Reduce pendency of 90,000+ cases in the Supreme Court to a “manageable number.”
    • Address growing trend:
      • Litigants bypassing High Courts and approaching SC directly.
      • Repeated “miscellaneous applications” causing prolonged litigation

    Major Cases Involving Justice Surya Kant

    • Abrogation of Article 370 (J&K’s special status removed).
    • Electoral Bonds Case – Bench struck down the scheme as unconstitutional.
    • Pegasus spyware case.
    • Suspension of sedition law deliberations.
    • Granted conditional interim bail to Ashish Mishra (Lakhimpur Kheri incident).

    Procedure for Selection of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)

    Constitutional Basis

    • Article 124(2) of the Constitution deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges (including the CJI). The CJI is appointed by the President of India.

    Seniority Convention

    • By long-standing constitutional convention, the most senior judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the next CJI.
    • Seniority = date of appointment to the Supreme Court Bench.

    Role of the Collegium

    When the CJI’s post is falling vacant:

    • The outgoing CJI recommends the name of the senior-most SC judge to the Government of India.
    • This recommendation is part of the Collegium system, but only the CJI’s advice is required, not the full Collegium.

    Role of the Law Ministry

    • The Ministry of Law & Justice processes the recommendation.
    • Sends it to the Prime Minister, who advises the President.

    Appointment by the President

    • The President formally appoints the recommended judge as the Chief Justice of India.
    • Appointment is notified in the Gazette.

    Oath of Office

    • The President administers the oath of office to the new CJI at Rashtrapati Bhavan.
    • Oath is under Article 124(6).

    Tenure

    • The CJI holds office until the age of 65.

    Q. With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:

    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.

    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.

    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

  • How can State PSCs be reformed

    Introduction

    Public Service Commissions are constitutional institutions meant to ensure merit-based appointments insulated from political pressures. A century after the Montagu–Chelmsford report envisaged them, State PSCs face credibility challenges due to recruitment irregularities and systemic inefficiencies that affect millions of aspirants.

    Why in the news?

    At the 2025 National Conference of Chairpersons of State Public Service Commissions hosted by Telangana PSC, members acknowledged recruitment controversies and demanded urgent reforms. Aspirant protests in Hyderabad highlighted how even minor delays disrupt youth livelihood prospects. Persistent exam cancellations and unclear syllabi have deepened mistrust despite PSCs’ constitutional mandate of meritocracy.

    Historical evolution of State PSCs :

    1. Montagu-Chelmsford Report :
      1. Recommended statutory recruitment bodies for welfare-oriented administration.
      2. Laid conceptual foundation for PSCs in India.
    2. First Public Service Commission (1926) :
      1. Set up for the Government of India before Independence.
      2. Marked beginning of institutionalised merit-based recruitment.
    3. Constitutionalisation through Article 315:
      1. Provided for separate Public Service Commissions for Union and States.
      2. Ensured autonomy and continuity post-Independence.

    Constitutional structure and organisation :

    1. Appointment and tenure of members: Governor appoints chairperson and members with fixed tenure and protected service conditions.
    2. Constitutional independence: PSCs function autonomously and discharge duties without executive interference.
    3. Role of UPSC in relation to State PSCs: UPSC may advise State PSCs on service matters when requested.
    4. Role of Ministry of Personnel: Helps maintain coherence in administrative policies across States.

    Present functioning and examination framework :

    1. Syllabus review mechanism: Periodic syllabus updates mandated to align with evolving administrative requirements.
    2. Question paper setting and evaluation: PSC sets papers, evaluates answer scripts and prepares selection lists.
    3. Cut-offs and result publication: Merit lists released after evaluation; criteria finalised by the PSC.

    Current challenges and bottlenecks

    1. Irregular recruitment cycles: Long gaps between notification and appointments disrupt careers and spark protests.
    2. Lack of transparency: Limited disclosure on answer keys and evaluation has lowered institutional credibility.
    3. Paper leaks and cancellations: Allegations of malpractice lead to cancellation, delays and erosion of public trust.
    4. Outdated syllabus issues: Poor syllabus revisions fail to reflect new governance themes and legal developments.
    5. Inconsistent standards across States: Divergent evaluation standards hinder mobility and generate inequality.

    Proposed reforms and restructuring measures:

    1. Revised manpower planning: Systematic vacancy forecasting to prevent examination delays.
    2. Fixed examination calendar: Annual, predictable and uniform recruitment schedule across States.
    3. Transparent evaluation policy: Mandatory disclosure of answer keys, normalisation criteria and cut-off logic.
    4. Academic and administrative alignment: Regular syllabus revision to match governance and administrative reality.
    5. Professional expertise induction: Inclusion of subject experts to improve paper quality and evaluation fairness.

    Conclusion

    State PSCs were created to provide equal opportunity in public employment. However, recruitment delays, unclear syllabi and opacity have damaged public trust. Ensuring predictability, transparency and institutional professionalism is essential to protect youth aspirations and restore confidence in constitutional recruitment bodies.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations too are covered under the Act?

    Linkage: The Act directly links to the PSC crisis by targeting leaks, exam fraud and loss of trust in public recruitment. It sets a future-ready template for PSC reforms through transparency, deterrence and integrity in examinations.

  • Presidential Reference on Governors & State Bills (2025)

     Why in the news?
     Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, on November 23, 2025, clarified the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in the 2025 Presidential Reference regarding timelines for Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills.

    What is a Presidential Reference?

    • Made under Article 143 of the Constitution.
    • The President can seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or matters of public importance.
    • Not binding, but carries high persuasive value.
    • Cannot overrule an existing judgment, but can clarify the law.

    CJI Gavai emphasised that the advisory opinion is not a judicial review judgment.

    Background: 

    Tamil Nadu Governor Case (April 8 Judgment) The April 8, 2025 Supreme Court judgment held:
    • Governors/President must act on pending Bills within 3 months,
    • Or else the Bill would be “deemed to have received assent”.

    This introduced a judicially created timeline not explicitly present in the Constitution. This triggered the Presidential Reference seeking clarity.

    Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion (November 20, 2025)

    A five-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai issued the following clarifications:

    a) No Mandatory Timeline: The Constitution does not prescribe specific timelines for Governors or the President. Judiciary cannot read timelines into the Constitution.

    b) “Reasonable Period” Standard: Governors and President must act within a “reasonable period”. However, the Court did not define what constitutes “reasonable”.

    c) No Endless Delay: Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills. Courts may exercise limited judicial review in extreme delay cases.

    d) Context Matters: Routine Bills → 1 month may be reasonable. Bills related to internal/external emergency → may require more time.

    Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

    Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills
    1. Give assent
    2. Withhold assent
    3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill)
    4. Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
    Article 201 – President’s powers over reserved Bills
    • Grant or withhold assent
    • No fixed timeline prescribed
    Article 143 – Presidential Reference
    • Supreme Court gives advisory opinion

    Why is this Important for UPSC Prelims?

    This case clarifies the separation of powers, federalism, and the role of constitutional authorities.

    Prelims often tests:

    • Powers of Governor
    • Assent procedures for Bills
    • Nature of advisory jurisdiction
    • Limits of judicial interpretation

    Other Key Statements by CJI Gavai (Factual Highlights)

    a) Advisory Opinion vs Judgment: Advisory opinion cannot overturn a judgment.

    b) Judiciary–Executive Relations: CJI rejected the idea that “friction” is necessary between judiciary and government.

    c) Judicial Independence: A judge’s independence is not measured by ruling against the government.

    d) High Court Judge Transfers: Transfers made for administrative reasons and sometimes due to complaints after verification.

    e) Personal Note: CJI forgave a lawyer who threw an object at him: “It’s how I was brought up.”

    Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State? (PYQ 2014)

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 

    2. Appointing the Ministers 

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

    (a) 1 and 2 only 

    (b) 1 and 3 only 

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only 

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • Search on for five declared foreigners by Assam tribunal

    Why In The News?

    Police in Assam’s Sonitpur district are searching for five people declared non-citizens by a Foreigners’ Tribunal after they repeatedly failed to appear for hearings, prompting the tribunal to issue an ex-parte order.

    1) About Foreigners Tribunal (FT):

    • Legal Basis: Quasi-judicial bodies established under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, issued under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
    • Purpose: Allows State authorities to refer cases of individuals suspected to be foreigners for determination.
    • Composition: Headed by members drawn from judges, advocates, or civil servants with judicial experience.
    • Powers: Possesses civil court powers-summoning individuals, examining on oath, and requiring document production.

    2) Are Foreigners Tribunals Only for Assam?

    • Nationwide Applicability: The 1964 Order applies across all of India, but FTs currently operate only in Assam.
    • Other States: Suspected illegal immigrants are dealt with by local courts under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
    • 2019 Amendment: Earlier only the Centre could set up FTs; after the amendment, states also have the power to establish them.

    3) Foreigners Tribunal – Functioning:

    • Notice Period: Tribunal must issue a notice to the suspected foreigner within 10 days of receiving a reference.
    • Response Time: The individual gets 10 days to reply, and another 10 days to submit supporting evidence.
    • Time for Disposal: Tribunal must dispose of cases within 60 days.
    • Outcome: If unable to prove citizenship, the person may be sent to a detention centre (transit camp) for future deportation.

    4) Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025:

    • Replaces: Supersedes the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 under the new Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
    • New Powers:
      • FTs can now issue arrest warrants and detain individuals unable to prove citizenship-previously done through executive orders.
      • Warrants may be issued if a suspect fails to appear.
    • Expanded Judicial Authority: FTs now possess powers of:
      • A civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
      • A judicial magistrate (First Class) under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
    • Key Powers Include:
      • Summoning and enforcing attendance.
      • Examining persons on oath.
      • Requiring discovery and production of documents.
      • Issuing commissions for witness examination.
      • Directing personal appearance.
      • Issuing arrest warrants for non-appearance.
    Ex-Parte Order:

    An ex parte decree is issued when a defendant fails to appear despite receiving summons, allowing the court to hear only the plaintiff’s case and pass a decision in the defendant’s absence.

     

    [UPSC 2009] Consider the following statements :

    1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up during the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri.

    2. The Members for CAT are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • SC clarifies Governor’s powers: How SC answered 14 questions President posed

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s opinion on the President’s 14 queries recalibrates the balance between Raj Bhavan and elected state governments. It ends the uncertainty around “pocket veto”, clarifies that gubernatorial discretion is narrow, and rejects any judicial power to impose timelines on constitutional authorities. The ruling is significant because it formalises procedural discipline without enabling judicial overreach, and reveals continued ambiguity that may trigger future litigation.

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court delivered a rare and highly consequential opinion under Article 143, addressing 14 constitutional doubts raised by the President regarding the Governor’s powers on Bills, aid and advice, delay, and discretion. It is a big development because the Court categorically ruled out the Governor’s “pocket veto”, reaffirmed that discretion is exceptional, not routine, and clarified that the judiciary cannot impose procedural timelines on constitutional posts. This marks a striking departure from previous ambiguities in Centre-State relations and reopens debate on federal accountability.

    What constitutional options are available to a Governor when a Bill is presented?

    1. Four Constitutional Options: Return the Bill, reserve it for the President, assent, or withhold assent; these options arise strictly from Article 200.
    2. Bar on Pocket Veto: The ruling prohibits an indefinite delay, emphasising that constitutional silence cannot be exploited to stall legislation.
    3. Return of Bill Allowed Only Once: The Governor cannot repeatedly send the same Bill back once the House re-passes it.
    4. No Withhold After Re-passage: Once the legislature re-adopts a Bill, the Governor must assent, ensuring legislative primacy.

    Is the Governor bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?

    1. Binding Advice Rule: Aid and advice are mandatory except in constitutionally specified discretionary functions.
    2. No Unfettered Discretion: The Governor’s disagreement with political outcomes does not justify refusing advice.
    3. Improper Refusal: The Court held that a Governor cannot withhold assent simply because a new government would not prefer the Bill.

    Are the Governor’s discretionary powers unlimited?

    1. Narrow Discretion: Discretion is “exceptional”, not a general supervisory authority over the legislature.
    2. Subjective Satisfaction Allowed Only for President’s Reservation: Under Article 200, the Governor may reserve a Bill if doubts on constitutionality exist.
    3. Judicial Review Retained: Reserving a Bill on irrelevant grounds is open to legal challenge.
    4. Discretion Must Meet Constitutional Purpose: Decisions must align with constitutional morality, not political preference.

    Can timelines be imposed on Governors or the President?

    1. No Judicially Enforceable Deadlines: The Court cannot prescribe rigid timelines because the Constitution does not contain them.
    2. Institutional Respect Principle: Judiciary recognises the separation of powers and avoids issuing operational directives to constitutional authorities.
    3. Practical Concern Highlighted: While Governors should act “reasonably expeditiously”, this remains non-justiciable.

    Are actions under Article 200 justiciable?

    1. Yes, on Limited Grounds: Courts may intervene if the Governor acts on irrelevant considerations or violates constitutional limits.
    2. Reasonableness Standard Applies: Judicial review ensures the Governor does not misuse constitutional silence to stall governance.
    3. Invalid Withholding Possible: A Governor withholding assent after re-passage would be unconstitutional and challengeable.

    Can a Governor substitute his decision with the President’s under Article 201?

    1. Permissible Only for Constitutionality Doubts: The Governor may reserve Bills only when genuine constitutional issues arise.
    2. No Arbitrary Referral: Relying on the President for policy disagreements is unconstitutional.

    Can courts adjudicate contents of Bills?

    1. Judicial Review Limited: Courts cannot examine legislative content before enactment except for exceptional situations.
    2. No Pre-Enactment Censorship: Validity can be tested only after the Bill becomes law.
    3. Reiterates Separation of Powers: Judiciary cannot intrude into legislative functioning.

    Can the President exercise constitutional powers in place of the Governor under Article 142?

    1. Court Rejects the Assumption: No constitutional fiction allows the President to step into the Governor’s role.
    2. Limits to Article 142: It cannot rewrite constitutional architecture.

    Conclusion

    The opinion reaffirms constitutional restraint, narrows gubernatorial discretion, disallows “pocket vetoes”, strengthens legislative sovereignty, and emphasises judicial non-interference in executive timelines. Yet the Court’s hesitation to set procedural limits leaves space for future litigation, signalling continuing tensions in Indian federalism.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Linkage: This PYQ is directly relevant as the latest SC Article 143 opinion clarifies the Governor’s narrow legislative powers and rejects misuse like delay or withholding assent. It links to the issue of constitutional propriety, making re-promulgation without placing ordinances before the legislature clearly unconstitutional.

  • Is federalism in retreat under single party hegemony?

    INTRODUCTION

    The rationalisation of GST ushered in a new era of indirect taxation but triggered concerns among several States regarding declining revenue autonomy. Disputes around compensation, centrally-sponsored schemes, disaster relief funding, and Finance Commission recommendations have reached the Supreme Court, raising a fundamental question: Is Indian federalism being structurally reshaped under a single-party political hegemony?

    The conversation in the article traces how fiscal and political federalism has shifted from cooperative frameworks in the 1990s to competitive and increasingly centralised dynamics post-2014.

    WHY IN THE NEWS

    The article is significant because it captures the unprecedented stress on fiscal federalism under GST, the decline of traditional accommodation politics, and the growing disconnect between richer southern States and the Union’s redistributive design. For the first time since liberalisation, States across the political spectrum are questioning the vertical imbalance and the shrinking autonomy embedded in taxation, grants, and centrally sponsored schemes. The issue is compelling because these structural tensions coincide with the rise of a dominant national party, altering how bargaining, negotiation, and regional representation historically shaped Indian federalism.

    Shifts in Federalism: From Accommodation to Assertion

    1. Federal Coalition Politics: Provided space for regional parties to influence national policy in the 1990s; reforms had federal character, and Centre-State interaction increased.
    2. Decline of Accommodation: Rise of single-party majority reduced negotiation; regional anxieties and political identities feel less represented.
    3. BJP’s Unitary Political Vision: Emphasises uniformity over accommodation, reducing incentives for coalition-based bargaining.

    How Has GST Altered the Fiscal Architecture?

    1. Loss of Tax Autonomy: States surrendered sovereign taxation power; they now depend on shared revenues and compensation.
    2. Compensation Tensions: Delays triggered mistrust; design issues, particularly Finance Commission-linked vertical imbalance, create sustained stress.
    3. Redistributive Principle: Southern States argue that redistributive transfers have become structurally rigid without acknowledging their economic efficiency.

    What Is Driving Regional Inequality and Fiscal Stress?

    1. Unequal Growth Patterns: Southern States showed high economic growth but lack employment-intensive outcomes; inequality persists.
    2. Structural Vertical Imbalance: Centre retains key taxation powers while States bear expenditure responsibilities; this misalignment fuels fiscal dissatisfaction.
    3. Urbanisation and Labour Migration: Remittances from poorer northern States sustain the growth of southern economies, deepening interdependence yet also friction.

    How Has Single-Party Dominance Reshaped Political Federalism?

    1. Reduced Federal Bargains: With weaker regional representation at the Centre, the cooperative ethos has weakened.
    2. Rise of Central Schemes: States perceive centralisation in scheme design, financing patterns, and conditionalities.
    3. Executive Federalism: More meetings, consultations, and vertical controls replacing political negotiation platforms like the Planning Commission.

    Why Are Delimitation and Census Triggering Concerns?

    1. Southern States’ Anxiety: Fear losing political weight due to lower population growth relative to northern States.
    2. Economic Contribution vs Representation: High-growth States feel the political architecture does not reward efficient governance.
    3. One Nation, One Election Debate: Seen as another centralising push, weakening federal political competition.

    CONCLUSION

    The article concludes that the crisis in Indian federalism is not merely episodic but structural, rooted in post-GST fiscal architecture, weakened accommodation politics, regional disparities, and the rise of a dominant national party. The challenge is to redesign mechanisms of trust, negotiation, and fiscal balance so that India’s federal compact remains resilient to political shocks and centred on cooperative problem-solving.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.

    Linkage: This PYQ directly aligns with the article’s core themes of growing centralisation, GST-driven fiscal stress, and weakening accommodation politics between the Centre and States. It links perfectly with the discussion on fiscal imbalance, GST Council tensions, Finance Commission changes, and the impact of single-party dominance on federal bargaining.

  • SC advisory on Presidential Reference on Governors’ timelines

    Why In The News?

    The Supreme Court will issue an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning its authority to impose timelines and prescribe procedures for Governors and the President when handling State Bills sent for assent or consideration.

    1) About the Judgement:

    • Scheduled Advisory Opinion: The Supreme Court is set to deliver its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning whether the Court can impose timelines and procedures for Governors and the President when dealing with State Bills.
    • Bench’s Position: The five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai held that the Court cannot remain inactive if a constitutional authority fails to perform its duties.
    • Political–Federal Context: The matter arises amid friction between Opposition-ruled States and Governors, with delays in assenting to key State legislation.
    • April 8 Judgment Trigger: The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed a three-month deadline on Governors and the President to act on Bills.
    • Impact on Governance: The Court ruled that Governors cannot impede governance by indefinitely withholding action on welfare legislation.
    • Union Government’s Objection: The Centre argued that the April 8 ruling creates a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may be inappropriate given the varied nature of Bills.
    • Argument on Judicial Overreach: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the Court cannot assume legislative functions by compelling Governors to grant assent through mandamus.

    2) Presidential Reference Under Article 143:

    • Meaning and Scope: Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
    • Article 143(1) – Optional Opinion: The Supreme Court may accept or decline to answer references under this clause. Example: refusal in the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi reference.
    • Article 143(2) – Mandatory Opinion: For disputes involving pre-Constitution treaties or agreements, the Court must render its opinion.
    • Nature of Advice: The advisory opinion is not binding on the President but carries significant legal authority.
    • Bench Requirement: Article 145(3) mandates that a minimum five-judge Bench must hear Presidential References.
    • Historical Origins: The power originates from the Government of India Act, 1935. Comparative jurisdictions: Canada accepts advisory opinions; the U.S. does not.
    • Past References: About 15 previous references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), Keshav Singh (1965), Presidential Poll case (1974), Third Judges Case (1998).
    • Key Question in Present Reference: Whether courts can impose timelines on Governors/President that are not expressly provided in Articles 200 and 201, and whether Article 142 enables the Court to frame such directions.
    • Limit on Overturning Judgments: As held in the 1991 Cauvery decision, Article 143 cannot be used to review or overturn settled Supreme Court judgments.
    • Constitutional Significance: The reference may clarify the constitutional roles of the President/Governors, promote federal balance, and remove procedural ambiguities.
    • Challenges of the Advisory Process: Advice is nonbinding, references may become politicized, “public importance” is undefined, and there is no timeline for the Court to respond.

    3) Relevant Constitutional Provisions & Case Law on Governors’ Powers to reserve state bills:

    • Article 200 – Governor’s Options: The Governor may assent, withhold assent with reasons, return a non-Money Bill once, or reserve the Bill for the President. Upon reconsideration and re-passage, the Governor must assent.
    • Article 201 – President’s Options: The President may assent, withhold assent, or return a non-Money Bill; unlike the Governor, the President is not bound even if the Bill is re-passed.
    • No Absolute or Pocket Veto: The Supreme Court held in the 2023 Tamil Nadu case that Governors cannot exercise a pocket veto; “as soon as possible” implies reasonable promptness.
    • Restriction on Reserving Bills: After a Bill is re-passed without amendments, the Governor must assent; it cannot be reserved again unless the content has changed.
    • Aid and Advice Principle: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited situations concerning High Court or Supreme Court powers.
    • Judicial Timelines and Reviewability: The Supreme Court imposed definitive timelines for Governor’s action under Article 200 and held that inaction is subject to judicial review.
    [UPSC 2012] Question: Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule

    2. Appointing the Ministers

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1 and 3 only* (c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • SC strikes down provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, tells govt. to set up panel

    Why In The News?

    Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, saying they gave government excessive control over tribunal appointments, functioning and salaries, undermining independence.

    1) About the Supreme Court Judgement on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

    • Striking Down Provisions: The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 that gave the Union government dominant control over appointments, functioning, and salaries of tribunal chairpersons and members.
    • Need for Independence: The Court held that Parliament must structure the tribunal system to ensure independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication as constitutional requirements.
    • Violation of Constitutional Principles: Laws that enable executive control, curtail tenure, or weaken autonomy violate foundational constitutional values.
    • National Tribunal Commission: The Bench directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure independence and transparency.
    • Repackaged Ordinance: The 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance struck down in July 2021.
    • Ignoring Defects: Parliament had ignored the defects pointed out earlier by the Supreme Court, transferring the same provisions into the 2021 Act with minor changes.
    • Rejection of Parliament’s Argument: The Court dismissed the claim that Parliament has discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
    • Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court insisted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot brush aside the supremacy of the Constitution.

    2) Power of Judicial Review:

    • Meaning: Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions of public authorities.
    • Process Review: It reviews how a decision was made, not the correctness of the decision itself.
    • Procedure Established by Law: A law is valid only if enacted following the proper legislative procedure.
    • Due Process of Law: Ensures that laws are fair and just; India follows Procedure Established by Law.
    • Scope: Extends to reviewing actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative bodies.
    • Functions: Helps legitimize government action and protects the Constitution from undue encroachment.
    • Basic Structure: Judicial review forms part of the basic structure doctrine (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975).
    • Judicial Functions: Includes interpretational and observer roles of the judiciary.
    • PILs and Suo Moto: Courts can intervene through Public Interest Litigation and suo moto cases.
    • Types:
      • Review of Legislative Actions: Ensures laws comply with the Constitution.
      • Review of Administrative Actions: Enforces constitutional discipline on administrative bodies.
      • Review of Judicial Decisions: Allows correction of prior judicial decisions.
    • Importance: Ensures supremacy of the Constitution, prevents misuse of power, protects rights, maintains federal balance, and upholds judicial independence.
    • Problems: May limit government functioning, create overreach, lead to rigidity, risk judicial bias, and diminish public faith through repeated interventions.
    • Indian Context: India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers, but has checks and balances empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

    3) Tribunals:

    • Nature: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies aimed at reducing caseloads and providing technical expertise.
    • Constitutional Basis: Articles 323A and 323B added via the 42nd Amendment (1976) empower creation of tribunals.
    • Article 323A: Enables Parliament to form administrative tribunals for service matters.
    • Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on subjects like taxation and land reforms.
    • 2010 SC Clarification: Subjects under Article 323B are not exclusive—legislatures may create tribunals for any subject in the Seventh Schedule.
    • Composition: Tribunals include judicial and technical members.
    • Jurisdiction: Defined, subject-specific jurisdiction; some have appellate powers.
    • Appeals: Generally lie with High Courts, though some go directly to the Supreme Court.
    • Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997): Appeals from tribunals must reach a division bench of High Courts.
    • Current Position: Tribunals may function as substitutes for High Courts or remain subordinate.

    Significance of Tribunals:

    • Specialization:
      • Ensures cases are handled by individuals with deep legal and technical expertise.
    • Speedy Resolution:
      • Enables timely resolution in crucial matters like tax, service disputes, and environmental issues.
    • Reduced Case Load:
      • Helps ease the burden on regular courts and reduces judicial backlog.
    • Accessibility:
      • Tribunals often have geographically dispersed benches, improving access for litigants.
    • Efficiency in Service Matters:
      • Bodies like CAT expedite government service-related disputes.

    Concerns with Tribunals:

    • Independence Issues:
      • Government-controlled appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
      • In 2019, the Supreme Court warned that lack of judicial dominance violates the separation of powers.
    • Pendency of Cases:
      • Example: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had 18,829 pending cases in 2021.
    • Human Resource Constraints:
      • Lack of staffing contributes to rising pendency.
    • Tenure Problems:
      • Short tenure and reappointment provisions increase executive control.
    • Non-Uniform Procedures:
      • Wide variations cause inconsistency and confusion for litigants.
    • Overlapping Jurisdictions:
      • Leads to conflicts between courts and tribunals.
    • Technical Member Issues:
      • Some technical members lack legal qualifications.
    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.

    2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a)  1 only (b) 2 only* (c)  Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Independence of Election Commission Of India(ECI)

    Why in the news?

    Amidst SIR exercise, the Opposition raised questions on the independence of ECI.

    About Election Commission of India(ECI)

    The Election Commission of India (ECI), established under Article 324, is responsible for ensuring free, fair, and impartial elections. Its independence is essential for democratic legitimacy.

    Constitutional Safeguards Ensuring Independence

    1.Security of Tenure – CEC-The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) can be removed only through a process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge- by a special majority of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

    2.Protection for Election Commissioners (ECs)-ECs can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC, preventing arbitrary dismissal by the executive.

    3. Financial Independence-ECI’s expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, insulating it from executive control through budget cuts.

    4. Plenary Powers under Article 324-ECI can act when existing laws are inadequate, allowing it functional autonomy during elections

    Independence After the 2023 Act

    Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This Act overrides the 2023 Supreme Court directive that required a three-member committee :PM + Leader of Opposition + CJI.

    Key Provisions and Their Impact

    1.New Appointment Committee-Appointments to CEC and ECs now made by a three-member panel:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM

    Impact: Replaces the CJI with a Cabinet minister, increasing executive dominance over appointments, raising concerns about ECI independence.

    2. Service Conditions-CEC and ECs will have the same salary and perks as Cabinet Secretary.

    Impact: This equates their status with high-ranking executive officers, which critics argue may reduce institutional insulation from the government.

    3.Term of Office-Fixed tenure of 6 years or until age 65, whichever earlier.

    Impact: Fixed tenure supports stability, but early retirement age could shorten term length.

    4. Removal & Suspension-No change: CEC retains constitutional protection; ECs removable only on CEC’s recommendation.

    Challenges to Independence (Post-2023 Act)

    • Executive-Dominated Appointments: A selection panel with a government majority may undermine the Commission’s neutrality.
    • Exclusion of CJI: Removing the Chief Justice from the panel weakens institutional checks and balances.
    • Status Dilution: Equating the CEC/ECs with a bureaucratic rank risks undermining their constitutional stature.
    • Post-Retirement Incentives: Possibility of government-appointed positions may affect independent decision-making.
    • Administrative Dependence: Continued reliance on government machinery for staffing and logistics limits functional autonomy.

    The Election Commission of India, protected by the Constitution, ensures free elections; the 2023 Act clarifies appointments, and strengthening autonomy and capacity can further reinforce its credibility and democratic role.

    [UPSC 2012] Consider the following statements:

    1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate election disputes.
    3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) None*

     

     

  • SC recalls verdict rejecting Green Clearances

    Why in the News?

    A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recalled its May 16 verdict that had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) to construction projects as a “gross illegality” and “anathema” to environmental laws. This decision had struck down a 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum of the Union Government that allows such retrospective clearances.

    Key Points of Decision

    1. Majority Opinion:
      • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled to recall the May 16 verdict, which had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) as illegal.
      • The majority emphasized the public interest in avoiding the demolition of ongoing construction projects, which could lead to significant financial losses and job cuts.
      • They argued that retrospective clearances should be an exceptional measure rather than a routine practice, and these projects could continue if heavy penalties were imposed for violations.
    2. Dissenting Opinion:
      • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, critiquing the majority for undermining environmental jurisprudence.
      • Justice Bhuyan argued that granting ex post facto ECs violates the precautionary principle and undermines sustainable development, as it encourages illegal constructions that bypass environmental laws.
      • He emphasized that environmental protection should not be compromised for development purposes.

    Implications of the Judgement

    • Development vs Environment: The decision underscores the tension between economic development and environmental protection, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development while addressing violations of environmental laws.
    • Environmental Governance: It raises questions on judicial review of executive actions, emphasizing the need for effective regulatory compliance and policy frameworks that balance growth with ecological safeguards.
    • Sustainability and Public Health: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect natural resources and public health, which is critical for India’s long-term sustainability and policymaking.