The Opposition in Rajya Sabha is preparing to move a motion for impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge for his controversial remarks inciting communal hatred.
Impeachment Processfor Judges in India:
About
The process involves Parliament passing an address to the President to remove the judge.
To pass the motion, two–thirds of the MPs present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha;
Must approve it, with a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
Key Constitutional Provisions
Article 124(4): The judge can only be removed by a Presidential order, passed after a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
The vote must come from two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Articles 218 of the Constitution extends the same rules to High Court judges.
The impeachment process ensures judicial independence by maintaining a high bar for removal, limiting political influence.
Grounds for Impeachment
A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be impeached on two grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as per the Constitution of India.
Further clarified in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, including:
Misuse of office
Grave offences that undermine the judge’s integrity
Contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.
What does the process entail?
Procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968:
Initial Step: The impeachment motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.
Committee Formation: Once the motion is introduced, the Speaker or Chairperson of the respective House forms a three-member inquiry committee:
Headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.
The second member is usually a Chief Justice of any High Court.
The third member is a distinguished jurist, appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.
Inquiry Process: The committee investigates the charges, cross-examines witnesses, and regulates its procedure.
The committee may also request a medical test if the charge relates to mental incapacity.
Outcome: If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dismissed. If found guilty, it will be reported back to the House for further action.
Instances of Impeachment in India:
1993: Justice V Ramaswami (Supreme Court) faced impeachment proceedings on financial impropriety. The motion was unsuccessful despite a guilty finding.
2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) was impeached for corruption but resigned before Lok Sabha could take up the matter.
2015: Justice S K Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court) faced impeachment on charges of sexual harassment, but the committee cleared him in 2017.
2015: Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court) faced impeachment for controversial remarks about reservation but the motion was dropped after the judge expunged the remarks.
2017: Justice C V Nagarjuna (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court) faced impeachment for financial misconduct and victimizing a Dalit judge, but the motion was not pursued.
PYQ:
[2019] Consider the following statements:
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
PYQ Relevance: Q) What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC CSE 2016)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains have previously ‘Judicial review’ (in 2016), and ‘religiousness/religiosity and Communalism’ (in 2017).
In a 2005 paper on ‘judicial inactivism,’ scholar Chad M. Oldfather discussed how courts have a “duty to decide” and how judicial inaction can be just as impactful as judicial action. He argued that failures to fulfill this duty are harder to detect than overreaching decisions, making inaction more concerning. A recent example of judicial deferment is the Supreme Court’s handling of the Sambhal masjid case in Uttar Pradesh. The Court refrained from a final decision, temporarily halting a survey-related civil court proceeding and sending the matter to the Allahabad High Court.
Today’s editorial underscores the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the Sambhal masjid case (Uttar Pradesh).
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
The Court’s order shows, once again, a reluctance to deal with the main issue — it should have taken a clear stand on the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act.
What were the events leading up to the violence in Sambhal?
Survey Controversy: The local civil court ordered a survey of the Sambhal masjid, which heightened tensions among community members. This survey was perceived as an infringement on religious sentiments, leading to protests and unrest.
Political Context: The backdrop of communal politics in India, where historical grievances are often invoked, contributed to the volatility of the situation. The mosque’s status became a focal point for various groups, exacerbating tensions.
Loss of Lives: The unrest resulting from the survey led to violence and loss of human lives, highlighting the severe implications of judicial decisions that touch on sensitive communal issues.
How did the judicial system respond?
Supreme Court’s Order: The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on proceedings related to the survey and directed the matter back to the Allahabad High Court, effectively deferring a decisive ruling on the issue.
Judicial Deferment: This approach reflects a pattern of judicial inaction, where the Court avoids making definitive rulings on contentious issues, opting instead for temporary measures to maintain peace.
Failure to Uphold Legislation: Critics argue that the Court’s reluctance to uphold the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which aims to preserve the status quo of places of worship as they existed in 1947, represents a failure to honour legislative intent.
What are the implications of judicial inquiries and commissions in addressing communal tensions?
Limited Effectiveness: Judicial inquiries and commissions often serve as mechanisms for delay rather than resolution, as seen in previous cases like those involving the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and farm laws. They may lead to temporary solutions without addressing underlying legal issues.
Erosion of Trust: When courts engage in deferment rather than decisiveness, it can erode public trust in the judiciary’s ability to handle communal tensions effectively.
Potential for Inaction: The reliance on committees or inquiries can create a perception that the judiciary is avoiding its duty to decide, potentially emboldening communal actors who seek to exploit legal ambiguities.
How does this case reflect broader issues of judicial accountability and public trust in the legal system?
Judicial Inactivism: The phenomenon described by Chad M. Oldfather highlights that judicial inaction can have significant consequences, often more difficult to detect than overreach. This in-activism can undermine public confidence in judicial integrity.
Need for Assertiveness: The Supreme Court’s reluctance to assertively interpret and uphold laws like the Places of Worship Act raises concerns about its commitment to constitutional principles such as secularism and fraternity.
Impact on Communal Harmony: Judicial decisions—or lack thereof—play a crucial role in shaping societal dynamics. Inaction on contentious issues can exacerbate communal tensions rather than mitigate them, leading to further unrest and division within society.
Way forward:
Assertive Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court should proactively address sensitive communal issues by upholding laws like the Places of Worship Act, ensuring that judicial decisions reflect the constitutional values of secularism and fraternity, and prevent further exploitation of legal ambiguities.
Timely and Decisive Rulings: To restore public trust, the judiciary must avoid deferring critical cases to lower courts or committees and instead issue clear, binding decisions that resolve underlying legal disputes, thereby maintaining social harmony and reinforcing accountability.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court made comments against the Muslim community at an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s legal cell, which has caused a lot of public criticism.
What are the key ethical principles outlined in the code of conduct for judges?
Majority Rule: Justice Yadav stated that India would function according to the wishes of the majority, referring to Hindus as the “bahusankhyak” (majority) community. He implied that the values taught to children in one community differ significantly from those in another, particularly regarding animal slaughter practices.
Critique of Muslim Practices: He criticized certain practices within the Muslim community, such as polygamy and triple talaq, while asserting that Hindus revere women as goddesses. This comparison has been interpreted as a direct attack on Islamic traditions.
Response from Legal Community: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms has called for an inquiry into Justice Yadav’s conduct, arguing that his statements violate judicial ethics and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Prominent legal figures have also suggested impeachment proceedings against him.
How do codes of conduct vary across different jurisdictions and judicial systems?
United States: The American Bar Association has established Model Rules of Professional Conduct which emphasize independence, integrity, and impartiality.
United Kingdom: The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office oversees judicial behavior, with a focus on maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
India: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life serves as a guiding document for judges, emphasizing the need for impartiality and respect for constitutional values.
What are the consequences for judges who violate the code of conduct?
In-House Procedures: Many jurisdictions have internal mechanisms allowing for complaints against judges to be investigated without public embarrassment.
Impeachment: In severe cases, judges can be impeached for misconduct, requiring a significant legislative majority to proceed.
Public Reprimand or Suspension: Depending on the severity of the violation, judges may receive reprimands or temporary suspensions from their duties.
Way forward:
Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Establish clearer and more transparent procedures for addressing judicial misconduct, including an independent body to investigate complaints and ensure timely action, thus preserving public trust in the judiciary.
Promote Judicial Sensitivity and Training: Implement regular training programs on diversity, impartiality, and the ethical responsibilities of judges to reinforce the importance of maintaining neutrality and respect for all communities, both in and out of the courtroom.
The Opposition in Rajya Sabha is preparing to move a motion for impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge for the same controversial remarks inciting communal hatred.
Impeachment Processfor Judges in India:
About
The process involves Parliament passing an address to the President to remove the judge.
To pass the motion, two–thirds of the MPs present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha;
Must approve it, with a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
Key Constitutional Provisions
Article 124(4): The judge can only be removed by a Presidential order, passed after a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
The vote must come from two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Articles 218 of the Constitution extends the same rules to High Court judges.
The impeachment process ensures judicial independence by maintaining a high bar for removal, limiting political influence.
Grounds for Impeachment
A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be impeached on two grounds: “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” as per the Constitution of India.
Further clarified in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, including:
Misuse of office
Grave offences that undermine the judge’s integrity
Contravention of the provisions of the Constitution.
What does the process entail?
Procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968:
Initial Step: The impeachment motion must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.
Committee Formation: Once the motion is introduced, the Speaker or Chairperson of the respective House forms a three-member inquiry committee:
Headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.
The second member is usually a Chief Justice of any High Court.
The third member is a distinguished jurist, appointed by the Speaker or Chairman.
Inquiry Process: The committee investigates the charges, cross-examines witnesses, and regulates its procedure.
The committee may also request a medical test if the charge relates to mental incapacity.
Outcome: If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dismissed. If found guilty, it will be reported back to the House for further action.
Instances of Impeachment in India:
1993: Justice V Ramaswami (Supreme Court) faced impeachment proceedings on financial impropriety. The motion was unsuccessful despite a guilty finding.
2011: Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) was impeached for corruption but resigned before Lok Sabha could take up the matter.
2015: Justice S K Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court) faced impeachment on charges of sexual harassment, but the committee cleared him in 2017.
2015: Justice J B Pardiwala (Gujarat High Court) faced impeachment for controversial remarks about reservation but the motion was dropped after the judge expunged the remarks.
2017: Justice C V Nagarjuna (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court) faced impeachment for financial misconduct and victimizing a Dalit judge, but the motion was not pursued.
Mains PYQ:
Q Distinguish between laws and rules. Discuss the role of ethics in formulating them. (UPSC IAS/2020)
PYQ Relevance: Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains have continuously focused on some micro themes in the Judiciary like – Judicial Governance (2023-24),major decisions taken by Apex Court, and the issues/challenges associated with Indian Judiciary (in 2021).
World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index ranks India at 69th out of 139 countries, reflecting public concerns about corruption and delays within the judiciary. Today’s Editorial talks about the challenges and some of the recent initiatives taken by the Judiciary.
This Editorial can be effectively used as a ‘case study’ as well as for representing present ‘challenges’ faced by the Indian Judiciary.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
The Chief Justice of India unveiled a new statue of Lady Justice at the Supreme Court premises, replacing the earlier version. The new statue features Lady Justice in a saree, without a blindfold, holding scales in one hand and the Indian Constitution in the other.
What is the Background?
Origin of Lady Justice: The modern depiction of ‘lady justice’ is rooted in Justitia, the Roman goddess of justice, characterized by a blindfold (clossed eyes), scales, and a sword.
The symbolism of the Blindfold: Introduced during the Renaissance as a satire on corrupt legal systems, it later came to represent impartiality during the Enlightenment, emphasizing justice without bias related to wealth or social status.
How does this new representation reflect societal demands for justice?
Colonial Influence: The British legal system established in India introduced a hierarchical court structure. ‘Lady justice’ became a prominent symbol in Indian courts during this period.
Decolonial Intent: The new statue aims to replace colonial symbols with representations more aligned with Indian traditions.
Cultural Representation: The statue’s attire is changed to a saree, reflecting Indian heritage.
Open Eyes: The removal of the blindfold signifies that justice is not blind. It acknowledges social diversity and the need for nuanced approaches to justice for underprivileged groups.
Constitution as Symbol: The sword is replaced with the Constitution, highlighting its supremacy in Indian jurisprudence while maintaining the scales to signify impartiality in weighing evidence.
What are the implications of it?
Controversies Around Statues: Historical controversies surrounding judicial statutes highlight the need for careful consideration of how justice is visually represented. Questions arise about whether justice should embody protest and resistance or reflect lived experiences and struggles.
Re-envisioning Justice: There is a call for justice representations to signify virtues such as feminism, anti-caste sentiments, secularism, and judicial independence. The aim is to creatively challenge existing biases within the judiciary while fostering discussions on improving public perceptions without perpetuating new forms of discrimination based on caste or religion.
Interpretation may differ related to the new statute of Lady justice but the Government should focus on issues related Judiciary in India:
What are the challenges related to the judiciary?
•Judicial Delays: The Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea for a three-year timeline to resolve over five crore pending cases, citing practical challenges due to overwhelming litigation. •Revised Memorandum of Procedure: There is an urgent need to finalize this document regarding judge appointments to enhance transparency and accountability in the judiciary. • Representation Issues: Less than 25% representation from backward classes, scheduled castes, tribes, and religious minorities exists in higher judiciary roles; women represent less than 15%. Appointments should reflect India’s social diversity. • Court Capacity: High Courts operate at only 60-70% capacity, exacerbating case backlogs. The government needs to expedite appointments based on collegium recommendations and fill vacancies in lower courts promptly. •Priority Cases: Constitutional validity cases and those concerning individual liberties should be prioritized by the higher judiciary to ensure timely justice delivery.
Way forward:
Strengthen Judicial Capacity: Expedite appointments in higher and lower courts to address vacancies, enhance infrastructure, and streamline case management systems to reduce pendency.
Promote Diversity and Transparency: Finalize the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments, ensuring representation of marginalized communities and women to reflect India’s social diversity and foster inclusivity.
The Ministry of Law and Justice is inviting comments on the draft Commercial Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
The GoI has enacted and amended the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to ensure that commercial cases are resolved quickly, effectively, and affordably.
Amendment History:
The original Commercial Courts Act was enacted in 2015.
Further amendments were made in 2018 to enhance the dispute resolution system.
Keyfeatures and provisionsoftheCommercial Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2024:
Details
Purpose
To enhance the speed and efficiency of resolving commercial disputes through specialized courts and procedures.
Dedicated Commercial Courts
Creation of Commercial Courts at the District level and High Court level to exclusively handle commercial disputes.
Arbitration Matters
Provisions to establish specific courts for handling arbitration-related disputes.
Electronic Communication
Includes provisions for the use of audio-video electronic means (video conferencing) for court proceedings, recording of evidence, and communications.
Pre-Institution Mediation
Mandatory mediation before filing a commercial suit, unless urgent relief is required, aimed at reducing litigation burden.
Time-bound Decisions
Judgment must be pronounced within 60 days of the conclusion of arguments. The judgment must be delivered to the parties via email or other electronic means.
Injunction Applications
Courts must dispose of injunction applications within 90 days of filing, with reasons provided for any delay.
Infrastructure
Provisions for setting up infrastructure like video conferencing facilities and other necessary resources for the functioning of Commercial Courts.
Appeals Process
New provisions for expediting appeals, requiring prior notice to the opposing party before filing.
Witness Management
Provisions to streamline the witness list format, requiring comprehensive details, including addresses and documents, and facilitating electronic submission.
Execution Proceedings
Execution proceedings must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing the application.
President Droupadi Murmu has called for an end to court delays. In the District Judiciary Conference, she said that frequent postponements make it hard for poor and rural people to seek justice, as they worry cases will take too long to resolve.
Primary Causes of Case Pendency and Frequent Adjournments in Indian Courts:
Judge-Population Ratio: India has a low judge-to-population ratio, with only 21 judges per million people as of 2024, far below the Law Commission’s recommended 50 per million.
Vacant Judicial Positions: Delays in filling judicial vacancies lead to understaffed courts, with 30% vacancies in High Courts, adding pressure on the existing judges.
Additional Judicial Charges: Judges often handle multiple courts or specialized responsibilities, detracting from their ability to focus on primary cases and adding to delays.
Complex Case Load: Courts are burdened by multiple types of cases, including civil, criminal, constitutional, and appeals, many of which end up in higher courts, leading to severe backlogs.
Lack of Judicial-Impact Assessment: New laws increase the caseload, but without assessing the impact on court infrastructure, staffing, and resources, exacerbating delays.
Delay in Witness Availability: Witnesses are often not available on time, which postpones court hearings and impacts trial timelines.
How can technology be leveraged to reduce case pendency?
Digitization of Case Records: Electronic records reduce administrative delays in case filing, retrieval, and transfer between courts.
AI-Powered Case Management Systems: AI can assist in case prioritization, track progress, and predict possible delays, enabling judges and clerks to streamline schedules more effectively.
E-Courts and Video Conferencing: Virtual hearings can expedite proceedings, especially for remote cases or minor disputes, saving travel and scheduling time.
Automation of Routine Processes: Automating administrative tasks like case status updates, notifications, and scheduling can reduce clerical delays and improve transparency for litigants.
Data Analytics for Judicial Insights: Predictive analytics can help in understanding case patterns, enabling policymakers to make data-driven decisions on judicial staffing and resources.
What reforms are necessary to improve judicial efficiency and reduce backlog? (Way forward)
Filling Vacancies and Enhancing Judge Numbers: Quick action on filling judicial vacancies is critical, along with increasing sanctioned positions to meet the demands of the population and growing caseload.
Implementing Judicial-Impact Assessments: Adopting the recommendations of the Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee for pre-legislative impact assessment would ensure adequate resources accompany new laws.
Expanding Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Scaling up mediation centers and incentivizing ADR methods can resolve disputes outside court, decreasing the burden on the judiciary.
Dedicated Special Courts: Establishing well-staffed, specialized courts for specific categories (e.g., economic offenses, family disputes) would help reduce strain on regular courts.
No Additional Charge Policy for Judges: Assigning a single focus area per judge ensures concentration on cases without undue burdens, leading to higher efficiency and better judgment quality.
Periodic Judicial Training: Regular training on case management and technological tools can empower judges and court staff to adapt to evolving needs, reducing inefficiencies.
The Chief Justice of India unveiled a new ‘lady justice’ statue at the Supreme Court.
This new statue replaces the previous version and is clothed in a saree, holds scales in one hand, and the Indian Constitution in the other, with its eyes uncovered—symbolizing that justice sees all equally.
About the Lady Justice Statue:
Details
History
Introduced during colonial rule, becoming a common feature in Indian courthouses.
Depicted in the Calcutta High Court (1872) and the Bombay High Court, with variations in blindfold status.
Modern Depiction
In 2024, a new 6-foot statue was unveiled by the Supreme Court of India, created by Vinod Goswami.
Symbolism
Absence of the blindfold signifies that “law is not blind,” promoting the idea of equality in justice.
Origins
Traces back to Greek mythology with Themis and Roman mythology with Justitia, traditionally depicted with a blindfold, scales, and a sword.
Notable Changes
Symbolizes that “the law is not blind,” emphasizing equality in justice.
Adorned in a Saree, reflecting Indian heritage and tradition.
Holds a copy of the Indian Constitution instead of a sword, representing rights and fairness.
Continues to hold scales, emphasizing the need for balance in weighing evidence and arguments.
Breaks free from colonial influences, aligning with contemporary Indian values.
Signifies a justice system that is aware, inclusive, and rooted in constitutional principles.
Positioned in theJudges’ Library of the Supreme Court, highlighting its significance in Indian jurisprudence.
The Marital Rape Exception (MRE), rooted in the doctrine of coverture from English common law, has long sparked debates about the legal autonomy of women within marriage.
Marital Rape Exception (MRE): What is it?
The MRE is found in Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and its equivalent, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to these provisions, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife do not constitute rape if the wife is above 18 years of age.
Why discuss this?
This legal immunity for husbands has been challenged for violating fundamental rights, and now, a three-judge Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud is set to examine the constitutional validity of this exception.
The outcome of this case could redefine the boundaries of consent and bodily autonomy within the institution of marriage in India.
Split Verdict by the Delhi High Court in 2022:
1. Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s Opinion:
Declared the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) unconstitutional.
Argued that the MRE violates a woman’s bodily autonomy and expression.
Criticized the exception as being rooted in patriarchy and misogyny.
Held that the classification of marital rape as different from rape outside marriage is unreasonable and arbitrary.
Emphasized that forced sex outside marriage is treated as “real rape,” while the same act within marriage is not.
2. Justice C. Hari Shankar’s Opinion:
Upheld the Marital Rape Exception, considering it legal within the framework of marriage.
Argued that sexual relations within marriage are a legitimate expectation.
Expressed concerns that allowing prosecution of husbands for non-consensual sex would be antithetical to the institution of marriage as understood in Indian society.
Believed that introducing the possibility of husbands being seen as rapists within marriage would undermine the institution of marriage.
Doctrine of Coverture from English Common Law:
The doctrine states that upon marriage, a woman’slegal existence was essentially merged with that of her husband.
The married woman was legally dependent on her husband, losing autonomy over her legal rights and property.
Impact on Women’s Rights:
Under this doctrine, a wife had no independent legal identity during marriage.
Women could not own property, enter contracts, or bring legal claims without their husband’s approval.
The husband had control over the wife’s body and actions, including sexual relations.
Influence on Marital Rape Exception:
The doctrine formed the basis for the original Marital Rape Exception in British common law.
It implied that a wife gave permanent consent to sexual relations upon marriage, which could not be withdrawn.
This legal reasoning was adopted in many British colonies, including India, and continues to influence Indian law today.
Modern Rejection:
England abolished the Marital Rape Exception in 1991 in the case of R v. R, recognizing that the doctrine of coverture no longer reflected the status of women in modern society.
Despite this, the doctrine’s influence persists in India’s legal system, particularly through the Marital Rape Exception in BNS.
PYQ:
[2024] The soul of new law, Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) is Justice, Equality and Impartiality based on Indian culture and ethos. Discuss this in the light of major shift from a doctrine of punishment to justice in the present judicial system.
The Delhi High Court recently permitted a couple in their sixties to access their late son’s sperm sample, thus opening the door for posthumous assisted reproduction.
About the Present Case:
The Delhi HC allowed a couple in their sixties to access their deceased son’s sperm sample for posthumous assisted reproduction, marking a significant legal ruling.
The son, who passed away from cancer in 2020, had cryopreserved his sperm at a hospital. The hospital refused to release the sample without a court order since there were no guidelines for cases without a surviving spouse.
The parents sought court intervention to carry on their son’s legacy, with the assurance that they would take full responsibility for any child born through surrogacy using the sperm sample.
What is the ART Act?
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act, 2021 regulates fertility treatments and artificial insemination procedures in India.
It provides guidelines for posthumous retrieval of sperm but is limited to cases where the deceased is married, allowing the surviving partner to seek sperm retrieval.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare stated that the current legislation does not account for “postmortem grandparenthood” cases, where grandparents seek to use a deceased individual’s sperm.
What are present International practices?
Uruguay: Allows posthumous reproduction with written consent valid for one year.
Belgium: Permits posthumous reproduction after a six-month waiting period following death, and the request must be made within two years.
Victoria, Australia: Requires written or oral consent before witnesses, approval from a “patient review panel,” and counseling for the parent.
Canada and the UK: Both require written consent for posthumous reproduction.
Israel: Limits the use of a deceased individual’s sperm to the female partner, with some exceptions allowing parents to use it. The Delhi High Court ruling referenced a similar case in Israel involving a 19-year-old soldier.
Precedents and Concerns:
Legal Precedent for Non-Spousal Claims: The Delhi High Court’s ruling sets a precedent where parties other than a spouse, such as parents, can claim the right to access a deceased individual’s cryopreserved reproductive material.
This expands the legal interpretation beyond the scope typically covered by existing laws, which usually prioritize the spouse’s consent.
Ethical and Consent Issues: Posthumous reproduction raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding the presumed consent of the deceased individual.
Determining whether the deceased intended for their reproductive material to be used after death can be complex, especially when explicit written consent is not available.
Child Welfare Considerations: The ruling highlights concerns about the future child’s welfare, who would grow up without one genetic parent.
Way forward:
Establish Clear Legal Guidelines: Develop comprehensive legal frameworks for posthumous reproduction, addressing scenarios beyond spousal claims and ensuring explicit consent requirements to guide such cases.
Prioritize Child Welfare and Ethical Considerations: Implement safeguards like mandatory counseling, ethical review panels, and consideration of the child’s best interests in decisions involving posthumous assisted reproduction.
At the National Conference of the District Judiciary, President Droupadi Murmu emphasized the problem of court delays. She pointed out that these delays are causing people to hesitate in approaching the courts.
What are the primary causes of delays in the Indian judicial system?
Ineffective Case Management: The lack of proper scheduling and timelines for filing documents, examining witnesses, and scheduling hearings leads to inefficiencies and prolonged delays.
Lawyers often seek adjournments due to unpredictable scheduling or strategic reasons, leading to repeated postponements of hearings.
Overburdened Judges: District court judges are often under pressure to prioritize cases based on higher court directives, skewing case management in favor of meeting deadlines rather than ensuring timely justice.
Incentive Structure for Judges: The “units system” rewards judges for disposing of simpler cases, often causing more complex cases to be delayed or neglected.
Extended Stays and Interim Orders: Litigants may use stays as a strategic delay tactic, reducing the urgency to resolve cases quickly.
Unpredictable Witness Testimonies: Disruptions in the court schedule and procedural delays make it difficult for witnesses to attend court, further contributing to trial delays.
Status of the case pending in India:
Total Pending Cases: As of 2024, there are over 58.59 lakh cases pending in high courts alone, with a staggering total of more than 51 million (5.1 crore) cases across all court levels, including district and Supreme Court.
Long-standing Cases: Nearly 62,000 cases have been pending for over 30 years, with some dating back to 1952. In high courts, about 23% of cases have been pending for over ten years2.
High Court Breakdown: The Allahabad High Court has the highest backlog, with over seven lakh cases pending as of 2018. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court currently has around 83,000 cases pending, marking a significant increase over the past decade despite an increase in the number of judges
What impact do these delays have on public perception and access to justice?
Erosion of Trust: Delays make the judicial process appear slow and ineffective, leading to public hesitation in approaching courts, fearing that litigation will complicate their lives.
Increased Legal Costs: Prolonged cases escalate legal costs for litigants, making justice unaffordable for many.
Reluctance to Seek Justice: The “black coat syndrome” highlights how people avoid courts due to the fear of endless adjournments and delays, diminishing access to timely justice.
Backlog of Cases: The increasing backlog due to delays creates further congestion in the judicial system, perpetuating a cycle of inefficiency.
How can reforms improve the efficiency of the judiciary? (Way forward)
Improved Case Management Systems: Implementation of Case Flow Management Rules with a focus on enforcing timelines for hearings and case disposal can streamline the process.
Reformed Incentive Structures: Reform the “units system” to incentivize judges to handle complex cases more efficiently rather than prioritizing simpler ones.
Predictable Scheduling for Lawyers: Providing clear scheduling information to lawyers can reduce unnecessary adjournments and improve case flow.
Review of Stay Orders: Limiting the duration of stay orders and making them subject to regular review can discourage their misuse as delay tactics.
Introducing real-time case management systems to track case progress and monitor delays could enhance judicial efficiency.
Support for Witnesses: Offering financial compensation and providing predictability in court appearances can encourage witnesses to testify without unnecessary delays.
On Monday, September 24, the Karnataka High Court permitted an investigation into Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
What was the MUDA scam case?
The Allegations: In July 2023, anti-corruption activists approached Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot, alleging that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, received 14 housing sites from the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
This was allegedly in exchange for a 3.16-acre plot of land that MUDA illegally acquired in 2021, during the tenure of the BJP-led government. The scam allegedly caused a loss of ₹55.80 crore to the state.
Governor’s Action: In response, the Governor issued a show-cause notice to Siddaramaiah and later sanctioned an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
What were the grounds for Siddaramaiah’s challenge?
Council of Ministers’ Advice: The Chief Minister argued that the Governor was bound by the Council of Ministers’ August 1, 2023 resolution, advising withdrawal of the show-cause notice.
Governor’s Discretion: Siddaramaiah contended that the Governor’s sanction was unjustified, biased, and exceeded his discretionary powers, which could only be invoked if the Council’s decision was irrational.
What did the court decide?
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Governor’s sanction for the investigation, stating that the circumstances justified the Governor’s actions under “exceptional circumstances.”
The court observed that the Governor’s decision was not made in haste but after careful consideration of the allegations and relevant facts.
The court clarified that private individuals (complainants) can seek approval to investigate public officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Governor’s approval can be granted even in such cases.
The court lifted the interim embargo on the investigation against Siddaramaiah, allowing the inquiry to continue into the alleged MUDA scam.
Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court upheld Governor Gehlot’s sanction for an investigation into the alleged MUDA scam, rejecting Siddaramaiah’s challenge. The court ruled that exceptional circumstances justified the Governor’s actions, allowing the inquiry to proceed.
The perception of justice is as vital as justice itself, with unelected constitutional institutions expected to uphold transparency and exercise restraint in engaging with elected authorities.
Relationship between Public Perception and the Actual Functioning of the Justice System:
Role of Perception in Justice: Perception of justice is critical because it shapes public trust in institutions. Even if the justice system functions properly, if it is perceived as biased or ineffective, it erodes confidence. The system must not only deliver justice but also be seen as just.
Moral Authority: When unelected constitutional bodies, like the judiciary, demonstrate transparency and accountability, they build moral authority.
Perception vs Reality: Public perception can sometimes be more influential than the actual functioning of the system. Institutions like the judiciary must work to balance delivering justice and managing public perception to maintain credibility.
How Do Systemic Biases Affect Perceptions of Justice Among Marginalized Communities:
Historical and Structural Biases: These perceptions arise when the system disproportionately impacts certain communities, whether through discriminatory practices or unequal access to legal representation.
Erosion of Trust: When systemic biases are evident, marginalized groups may become cynical or disengaged from legal processes, believing that the system is not designed to serve their interests. This creates a widening gap between these communities and the justice system.
Impact on Public Discourse: Systemic biases fuel narratives that the justice system is rigged or unfair. In the long term, this can lead to public apathy, where marginalized groups may stop engaging with the system, assuming that it will not provide them justice.
Broader Reflections on Democracy and Institutions:
Information and Discourse: The explosion of media and social media has blurred the lines between personality-driven and issue-based politics. This shift has led to heightened cynicism, where the focus on individuals overshadows serious discourse on public issues.
Restoring Institutional Integrity: For democracies to thrive, institutions must maintain boundaries defined by constitutional mandates. When constitutional organs exhibit higher standards of probity and transparency, they inspire trust, which is vital for democracy.
Responsibility of Constitutional Institutions: Independent constitutional bodies, like the judiciary, are expected to rise above partisan politics and protect democratic values.
The example of T.N. Seshan, former Chief Election Commissioner of India, exemplifies how individuals can enhance institutional integrity by adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining public confidence.
Conclusion:
The functioning of the justice system, while critical, is deeply influenced by public perception, especially among marginalized communities. Systemic biases create barriers to justice for these communities, reinforcing negative perceptions. Constitutional organs must hold themselves to higher standards, as public trust in these institutions is vital for the health of democracy.
President Droupadi Murmu unveiled the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court of India during the National Conference of District Judiciary in New Delhi.
AboutNew Flag and Insignia of the Supreme Court of India:
Details
Designed by
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Delhi
Flag Design
Blue flag featuring three symbols:
Ashoka Chakra (Symbol of India’s legal and cultural heritage)
Supreme Court Building (Represents the institution of justice in India)
Constitution of India (Highlights the role of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution)
Insignia
Includes the Sanskrit phrase “Yato Dharmastato Jayah“ inscribed in Devanagari script.
Translates to “Where there is Dharma, there is victory“, symbolizing the Supreme Court’s dedication to justice and righteousness.
Occurs 13 times in the epic the Mahabharata.
Flag Formats
Available in cross table flat, single table flag, pole flag, and wooden frame versions
PYQ:
[2023] Consider the following statements in respect of the National Flag of India according to the Flag Code of India, 2002:
Statement-I: One of the standard sizes of the National Flag of India is 600 mm * 400 mm.
Statement-II: The ratio of the length to the height (width) of the Flag shall be 3:2.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
Some medical students have filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s dismissal of their plea to cancel NEET UG 2024 over alleged malpractices.
What is a Review Petition?
Details
Constitutional Provision
Article 137 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to review any of its judgments or orders.
Scope of Review
Corrects “patent errors” and not minor mistakes.
It is not an appeal; it does not involve re-evaluating the entire case but correcting grave errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Filing Review Petition
Can be filed by any person aggrieved by a ruling, not necessarily a party to the case.
Must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order.
Delay can be condoned if justified with strong reasons.
Grounds for Review
Discovery of new and important evidence not available earlier despite due diligence.
Mistake or errors apparent on the face of the record.
Procedure in the Court
Review petitions are usually heard through circulation without oral arguments.
In exceptional cases, oral hearings may be allowed, especially in death penalty cases.
Heard by the same bench of judges who delivered the original judgment or order.
Option After Review Fails
If a review petition is dismissed, a curative petition can be filed as per the Roopa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) ruling, on very narrow grounds similar to a review petition.
PYQ:
[2017] In India, Judicial Review implies:
(a) the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
(b) the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures.
(c) the power of the Judiciary to review all the legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President.
(d) the power of the Judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases.
According to a report by the Ministry of Law and Justice, only 0.11% of cases were settled through “plea bargaining” in 2022.
Key Findings of the Report:
In 2022, only 19,135 out of 1,70,52,367 cases (about 0.11%) in Indian courts were disposed of through plea bargaining, indicating its minimal use.
Despite legal restrictions, 119 cases of crimes against women and only4 cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) were resolved through plea bargaining in 2022, showing a deviation from the intended exclusions.
What is Plea Bargaining?
Details
Definition
Plea bargaining allows an accused person to negotiate with the prosecution for a lesser punishment by pleading guilty to a less serious offence.
This involves pre-trial negotiations on the charge or the sentence.
Provision in India
• Introduced in 2006 as part of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 under Chapter XXI-A (Sections 265A to 265L).
• Limited to offences thatdo not attract the death sentence, life sentence, or a term above seven years.• Not applicable to offences affecting socio-economic conditions or committed against women or children under 14. (applies only to offences punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment)
Procedure in India
• Only the accused can initiate plea bargaining.
• The accused must apply to the court to start the process. If permitted, a meeting involving the prosecutor, investigating officer, and victim (if any) is held for a satisfactory case disposition.
• Includes possible reduced sentences and compensationpayments to the victim by the accused.
Benefits Offered
• Speeds up trials, reduces litigation costs and ends uncertainty over case outcomes.
• Helps reduce prison overcrowding and the number of prolonged imprisonments of undertrials.
• Offers a chance for offenders to make a fresh start.
• Could improve conviction rates, as seen in the USA.
• Recommended by the Malimath Committee (2000) for its potential to dramatically impact conviction rates and ensure a speedy trial.
PYQ:
[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail.
2. During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was arrested in early 2023 by the CBI and ED in the Delhi liquor policy case. After nearly a year and a half in prison, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail, underscoring that bail should not be used as a form of punishment.
Previous judgments on the ‘Right to Speedy Trial’:
The Supreme Court referenced its earlier judgments, including Kashmira Singh (1977), P. Chidambaram (2020), and Satender Kumar Antil (2022), which establish that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court’s decision in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2020) was cited, reinforcing that liberty is a core component of constitutionalism.
In recent scenario, the SC relied on its earlier order dated October 30, 2023, in Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau of Investigation, which highlighted concerns about the large volume of evidence (56,000 pages of documents and 456 witnesses) potentially causing significant delays in trial proceedings.
What are the present limitations?
Prolonged Incarceration: The ruling pointed out that the legal system often leads to excessive delays, which can result in individuals being punished without trial.
Dependence on Prosecutorial Statements: A concern was raised about the reliance on the prosecution’s assurances regarding the timeline for trial completion.
‘Guarantee of Civil Liberties’:
Constitutional Foundation: The Supreme Court emphasized that individual liberties should not be contingent on the discretion of the prosecution.
In judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded the understanding of due process, emphasising that any deprivation of liberty must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedures.
Judicial Responsibility: The judgment aims to prevent the misuse of stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals.
In Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023), the Supreme Court emphasized judicial oversight in PMLA enforcement while ensuring trials follow underlying offenses.
Public’s trust on Judiciary: Presently, the Apex Court pointed out the flawed tendency of some judges to deny bail unnecessarily, ignoring the principle of timely trials. This may lead to loss of public trust in the judiciary.
Call for Systemic Change: The ruling urges a reevaluation of the political and legal systems to prioritize justice and individual rights over personal vendettas.
State of Maharashtra v. Rani Kusum (2005) underscores the necessity for reforms to address delays in the judicial process.
Bail is the Rule, Not the Exception: The Supreme Court’s decision in granting bail to Manish Sisodia reinforces the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception.
Way forward:
Adherence to procedural deadlines: In this situation, courts should enforce stricter adherence to procedural deadlines and prioritize cases involving prolonged incarceration to safeguard the right to a speedy trial.
Independent oversight committees: Need to establish independent oversight committees to regularly review cases of prolonged incarceration without trial, ensuring accountability and reducing reliance on prosecutorial assurances alone.
Mains PYQ:
Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)
Legal insights from well-structured think tanks can be crucial in clarifying the true intent of specific legislation for the government.
Scope to Review the Process of Legal Consultancy
Need for Structured Legal Inputs: The handling of legal issues by the National Democratic Alliance has been inadequate. There is a need for continuous, informed, and empirically valid legal inputs from structured think tanks to clarify legislative intents.
Proposal for a Legal Advisory Council (LAC): Establishing a LAC akin to the Economic Advisory Council could provide the Prime Minister with timely legal analysis and insights, helping to preempt legal challenges and enhance the legislative process.
Need of Think Tank:
Expert Legal and Policy Analysis: Well-structured think tanks provide informed and empirical legal analysis that can enhance the legislative process.
Facilitation of Evidence-Based Decision Making: Think tanks can contribute to evidence-based decision-making by conducting research and providing data-driven insights on complex legal and social issues.
Recent Legal Issues and the Puttaswamy Case Judgment
Electoral Bonds Scheme: The Supreme Court recently ruled the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional for violating voters’ right to information. This decision highlights the importance of conducting proportionality tests before implementing laws to balance privacy rights with transparency.
Aadhaar Act Intervention: A similar legal examination prior to the implementation of the Aadhaar Act could have prevented the Supreme Court’s intervention in the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, which addressed privacy concerns.
Transporter Strike: Concerns over the hit-and-run provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, led to nationwide protests by transporters, indicating the need for thorough legal viability assessments before introducing potentially problematic legislation.
Anticipating Challenges
Proactive Legal Analysis: The proposed LAC would conduct legal analyses of issues referred by the government and perform suo motu research on contemporary legal matters, allowing for proactive identification of potential legal challenges.
Engagement with National Law Universities: Leveraging the expertise of national law universities can enhance the legal consultancy process, ensuring that laws are constitutionally viable and socially acceptable. Regular research inputs from these institutions can aid in formulating better legislation and addressing legal challenges before they escalate.
Way forward:
The LAC should comprise legal experts, eminent jurists, academicians, and researchers with specializations in various fields frequently legislated upon by the government, such as criminal law, trade law, international law, business laws, and taxation laws.
Establish formal mechanisms for collaboration, such as the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws at the National Law University Delhi set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to facilitate the exchange of ideas and research between the government and academia.
The Union government has said that 219 proposals for the appointment of High Court judges by the Collegium are in various stages of processing.
What is Collegium System?
The collegium system is the method used for the appointment and transfer of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
It is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
The term ‘Collegium’ does not find mention in the Constitution.
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 124: The President appoints the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court after consultations with judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.
Article 217: The President appoints High Court judges after consultations with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned
Composition:
Supreme Court Collegium:
A five-member body.
Headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Includes the four other senior most judges of the Supreme Court at that time.
High Court Collegium:
Led by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.
Includes the two senior most judges of that High Court.
Recommendations for appointments by a High Court collegium are sent to the government only after approval by the CJI and the Supreme Court collegium.
Evolution: Three Judges Cases
First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is not binding on the executive in the matter of appointments and transfers of judges. The court ruled that the executive has primacy in judicial appointments.
Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
The Supreme Court, by a majority of 7:2, overruled the First Judges Case and held that the CJI’s opinion regarding judicial appointments and transfers should be given primacy.
The court established that the CJI should consult with the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court before making recommendations for appointments and transfers, thereby creating a collegium system.
Third Judges Case (1998): 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 are 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.
Qualifications for Appointment as a Supreme Court Judge:
According to Article 124(3) of the Constitution, a person can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court if he or she:
Is a citizen of India.
Has served as a judge of a High Court for at least five years or in two such courts in succession.
Alternatively, has been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years or in two or more such courts in succession.
Is a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.
Qualifications for Appointment as a High Court Judge:
The person must have held a judicial office for at least 10 years in India, or
Must have been a practising advocate in a High Court for at least 10 years.
The person must be enrolled under the Bar Council of India.
PYQ:
[2012] What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?
While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
All appointments of officers and staffs of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Voters have cleverly embraced the idea of constitutional principles to protect their freedoms. It’s now everyone’s responsibility, including elected officials, citizens, and the judiciary, to ensure that there’s no overreach.
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 99: Mandates that every member of Parliament must take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution.
Third Schedule: Specifies the form of oath or affirmation that members of Parliament, judges of the Supreme Court, and High Courts must take.
Part III (Fundamental Rights): Guarantees civil liberties, such as the rights to equality, freedom of speech, and right to life.
Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy): Provides guidelines for governance, directing the state in certain policy matters for the welfare of citizens.
Basic Structure and Foundational Principles:
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Established the doctrine that certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament if they violate its “Basic Structure”, ensuring that fundamental principles like democracy, secularism, judicial review, and federalism cannot be altered.
Foundational Principles: Include the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence, and protection of fundamental rights.
Basic Structure and foundational principles should never be allowed to be eclipsed
Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Basic Structure doctrine protects fundamental rights and core principles like democracy, secularism, judicial independence, and federalism in India.
Preservation of Constitutional Balance: Eclipsing the Basic Structure and foundational principles could upset the delicate balance of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. These principles ensure that no single branch of government becomes disproportionately powerful, thereby maintaining the checks and balances essential for democratic governance.
Upholding the Rule of Law: The Basic Structure doctrine reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. By preventing its core principles from being undermined or diluted through constitutional amendments or legislative actions, it ensures that all state actions, including laws passed by Parliament, are consistent with constitutional norms and the rule of law.
Significance of “Judicial Overreach”:
Protection of Rights: Judicial overreach often arises when courts intervene to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, especially when legislative or executive actions are perceived to violate these rights.
Checks and Balances: It serves as a crucial check on the powers of the legislature and executive, ensuring that their actions conform to constitutional principles and do not exceed their authority.
Defending the Constitution: Courts may intervene to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, ensuring that laws and actions comply with its provisions, including the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Criticisms of judicial overreach:
Interference with the Separation of Powers: Critics argue that judicial overreach interferes with the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Lack of Accountability: Another criticism of judicial overreach is that the judiciary is not accountable to the people in the same way that elected representatives are. Because Judges are appointed, not elected
Dilution of Democracy: Some critics argue that judicial overreach can undermine the democratic process by taking important decisions out of the hands of elected officials and placing them in the hands of judges.
Mains PYQ:
Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)
A casual remark from a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council has reignited the debate on judges’ working hours and vacations.
Reports on Case Pendencies:
According to the “India Justice Report”, as of June 2020, cases remain pending for an average of three years in subordinate courts and five years in high courts, highlighting the extensive backlog.
Issues of unfilled vacancies and lack of infrastructure/ Present challenges:
Overburdened Judiciary: Judges and courts are overburdened with excessive government litigation, new legislation adding to the workload, and the rising tide of litigation across various domains.
Infrastructure Deficits: Shortages in courtrooms and support staff, with national averages showing a 26% deficit in support staff. Insufficient infrastructure hampers the smooth processing of cases.
Quality Deficits: Uneven proficiency in language and legal knowledge among lawyers and judges contribute to procedural delays and suboptimal outcomes. Lengthy pleadings, paper books, and judgments further exacerbate the problem.
Vacancy Crisis: Many courts, including high courts and lower courts, face a significant shortage of judges, with vacancies averaging around 30% in high courts and 22% in subordinate courts. Some states, like Bihar and Meghalaya, have vacancies exceeding 30% for over three years.
Lack of administrative support and outdated procedures impede the efficient management of cases and court operations.
What can be done?
Address Vacancies: Expedite the appointment process for vacant judicial positions and strive to achieve full complement in courts to alleviate workload pressures.
Set higher standards for judicial appointments and legal practice to ensure competence and proficiency among legal professionals.
Establish Permanent Administrative Secretariats (PAS) led by qualified court managers to assist judges in case management and administrative tasks.
Invest in Infrastructure: Build more courtrooms, hire additional support staff, and invest in technology to streamline court processes and enhance efficiency.
Allocate adequate resources to the judiciary to improve infrastructure, enhance administrative capabilities, and ramp up efficiency in justice delivery.
Prioritize Judicial Reform: Undertake comprehensive judicial reforms to address systemic issues, streamline processes, and enhance access to justice for all citizens.
Implement specialized courts, pre-trial mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to expedite case resolution and reduce backlog.
Mains PYQ:
Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (UPSC IAS/2017)
