Introduction
The Supreme Court of India stands at the apex of the country's integrated judicial system, serving as the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate interpreter of its provisions. Enshrined in Articles 124-147 of Part V, its constitutional mandate extends to protecting Fundamental Rights, resolving disputes between the Union and states, and ensuring justice. The evolution of its composition, particularly the Collegium system for judicial appointments, reflects a continuous effort to maintain its independence, a vital element of the Basic Structure. This section delves into the organization, powers, functions, and the ongoing debates surrounding the Supreme Court's role in upholding the rule of law and constitutionalism in India.
4.3.1: Constitutional Mandate & Role
Highest Judicial Body
The Supreme Court (SC) is the highest judicial body in India. Its decisions are binding on all other courts in the country.
Guardian of the Constitution & FRs
The SC protects the sanctity of the Constitution and safeguards the Fundamental Rights of citizens. It can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional (Judicial Review).
Ultimate Interpreter of the Constitution
The SC has the ultimate authority to interpret constitutional provisions. Its interpretations are final and binding.
Federal Court
It acts as a federal court, settling disputes between the Union and states, or between states, thereby maintaining the balance of power in India's federal structure.
Integrated Judicial System
India has a single, integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top, followed by High Courts, and then subordinate courts. This ensures uniformity of law and justice (unlike the dual system in USA).
4.3.2: Organisation of the Supreme Court
Composition (Art 124(1))
The Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges.
- Current Strength: CJI + 33 other judges, total 34 judges (as per Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019).
- Power to Increase: Rests with Parliament.
Appointment of Judges (Art 124(2))
CJI Appointment
- Appointed by the President.
- Convention of Seniority: Senior-most judge of SC is usually appointed CJI.
- Superseded Twice: A.N. Ray (1973), M.H. Beg (1977).
- Reaffirmed: Second Judges Case (1993) reaffirmed seniority convention.
Other SC Judges Appointment
- Appointed by President after consultation with CJI and other SC/HC judges as deemed necessary.
- "Consultation" with CJI evolved to mean "concurrence" of Collegium through 'Judges Cases'.
Evolution of Collegium System
1st Judges Case (1981) - Executive Primacy
S.P. Gupta vs UoI: Ruled "consultation" in Art 124 means only "consultation," not "concurrence." President (executive) not bound by CJI's advice.
2nd Judges Case (1993) - Judiciary Primacy
SCORA vs UoI: Overruled 1st case. "Consultation" means "concurrence." Established Collegium of CJI + 2 senior-most SC judges for recommendations. President bound by advice. Birth of Collegium System.
3rd Judges Case (1998) - Collegium Expansion
Presidential Reference: Expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for SC appointments. Recommendation without following collegium process not binding on government.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) (2014)
99th Amendment Act & NJAC Act attempted to replace Collegium. Composition: CJI, 2 senior SC Judges, Union Law Minister, 2 eminent persons. Tasked to recommend judges.
4th Judges Case (2015) - Collegium Revived
SCORA vs UoI: SC declared 99th Amendment & NJAC Act unconstitutional (violating 'Independence of Judiciary' - a Basic Structure element). Struck down NJAC, reviving the Collegium System.
Current Debates on Judicial Appointments
The Collegium system faces ongoing criticism regarding transparency and accountability.
- Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): Ongoing discussions between government and judiciary on finalizing the MoP for appointments, with disagreements on eligibility criteria, government screening role, and rejection procedures.
- Need for Reforms: Debates persist on finding a more transparent, objective, and accountable mechanism for judicial appointments that respects judicial independence.
Qualifications (Art 124(3))
A person must be a citizen of India and:
- Judge of a High Court for 5 years; OR
- Advocate of a High Court for 10 years; OR
- Distinguished Jurist in the opinion of the President (rarely used).
Oath or Affirmation (Art 124(6))
Before entering office, a Supreme Court judge takes an oath before the President or a person appointed by him.
Tenure & Removal (Art 124(2), 124(4))
Tenure
- Holds office until the age of 65 years.
- Can resign by writing to the President.
Removal Procedure
- By President's order, after Parliament address (special majority in each House).
- Grounds: "Proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
- Regulated by Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- No judge has been successfully removed so far. (e.g., Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice Soumitra Sen, Justice P.D. Dinakaran impeachment proceedings failed due to various reasons).
Salaries & Allowances (Art 125)
Determined by Parliament, charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (non-votable). Cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency.
Acting CJ, Ad hoc & Retired Judges
Acting CJ (Art 126)
President can appoint when CJI office is vacant or CJI is unable to perform duties.
Ad hoc Judges (Art 127)
CJI can appoint HC judges (qualified for SC) as ad hoc judges with President's consent & consultation with concerned HC CJ, for temporary quorum.
Retired Judges (Art 128)
CJI can request retired SC/HC judges (qualified for SC) to sit as temporary judges with President's & person's consent.
Seat of Supreme Court (Art 130)
The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the CJI may, with the approval of the President, from time to time, appoint.
Procedure of SC (Art 145)
The Supreme Court can make rules for regulating its practice and procedure with the President's approval.
- Constitutional Bench: Cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution (or Art 143 references) must be decided by a Bench of at least five judges.
- Decisions: All decisions are by a majority vote.
4.3.3: Independence of the Supreme Court
The Constitution has made several provisions to ensure the independence of the Supreme Court and its judges, crucial for its role as guardian of the Constitution.
Mode of Appointment
Collegium system gives judiciary primacy, minimizing executive interference (evolved through Judges Cases).
Security of Tenure
Judges can only be removed by a stringent and difficult impeachment process (not by executive pleasure), providing security of tenure until 65 years.
Fixed Service Conditions
Salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension are determined by Parliament but cannot be changed to their disadvantage after appointment (except during Financial Emergency).
Expenses Charged on CFI
Administrative expenses, including salaries/pensions of judges and staff, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (non-votable by Parliament).
Conduct Not Discussable (Art 121)
Prohibits discussion on the conduct of any SC or HC judge in Parliament, except when a motion for his removal is under consideration.
Power to Punish for Contempt (Art 129)
The SC is a 'Court of Record' with power to punish for its own contempt, ensuring its authority, dignity, and majesty are maintained. This power extends to subordinate courts.
Freedom to Appoint Staff (Art 146)
The CJI can appoint officers and servants of the Supreme Court without executive interference, subject to parliamentary laws.
Jurisdiction Cannot Be Curtailed
Parliament cannot curtail the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. However, it can extend them.
Separation from Executive (Art 50)
DPSP (Art 50) directs the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services, reinforcing judicial independence.
Ban on Practice After Retirement (Art 124(7))
A retired SC Judge is restricted from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India to ensure impartiality and prevent favouritism.
4.3.4: Jurisdiction and Powers of the SC
Original Jurisdiction (Art 131)
- Exclusive: Disputes between GoI & one or more States; GoI & State(s) on one side and other State(s) on other; or between two or more States.
- Dispute must involve a question of law or fact on a legal right.
- Exclusions: Pre-Constitution treaties, Inter-state water disputes (Art 262), Finance Commission matters (Art 280), certain expenses (Art 290).
Writ Jurisdiction (Art 32)
- Guarantor and protector of Fundamental Rights.
- Power to issue 5 types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo-Warranto.
- Not Exclusive: Shared with High Courts (Art 226). However, the right to move the SC under Art 32 itself is a Fundamental Right.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Art 132-136)
- Constitutional (Art 132): Appeals from HC if substantial question of law re: interpretation of Constitution.
- Civil (Art 133): Appeals from HC if substantial question of law of general importance needs SC decision.
- Criminal (Art 134): Appeals from HC if HC reversed acquittal & sentenced to death; or convicted & sentenced to death after withdrawing case from subordinate court; or certifies fit for SC appeal. Parliament can enlarge.
- Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Art 136): SC's discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment/order of any court/tribunal (except military tribunal). Very wide power.
Advisory Jurisdiction (Art 143)
- President can seek opinion of SC on:
- Any question of law or fact of public importance (SC may advise, opinion not binding).
- Any dispute arising out of pre-Constitution treaty (SC must advise, opinion not binding).
- Examples: Berubari Union case (1960), Third Judges Case (1998), 2G Spectrum (2012).
Court of Record (Art 129)
- Judgments, proceedings, acts recorded for perpetual memory and testimony; have evidentiary value.
- Power to punish for its contempt (civil or criminal).
Judicial Review
- Power to examine constitutionality of legislative and executive actions of Centre & States.
- If violative of Constitution, can be declared illegal/void.
- Part of Basic Structure: Declared in Minerva Mills case (1980).
Other Powers
- Complete Justice (Art 142): Pass orders necessary for 'complete justice' in any case (e.g., Bhopal Gas Disaster case). Very wide discretionary power.
- Law declared by SC binding (Art 141): Doctrine of Precedent / Stare Decisis.
- Enforcement of decrees (Art 142): SC orders enforceable throughout India.
- Review its own judgments (Art 137): Power to review judgments/orders. Led to Curative Petition (Rupa Ashok Hurra case).
- Transfer cases (Art 139A): Power to transfer cases from HCs to itself or between HCs.
- Power to secure attendance of persons, discovery of documents, etc. (Art 142).
4.3.5: Supreme Court Advocates
Senior Advocates
Designated by SC/HCs based on ability, standing, special knowledge. Have special privileges. Cannot appear without an Advocate-on-Record.
Advocates-on-Record (AoR)
Only AoRs are entitled to file any matter or document in the Supreme Court. Undergo a special examination. Other advocates must act through an AoR.
Other Advocates
Enrolled with any State Bar Council. Entitled to appear and argue before the Supreme Court but cannot file any matter directly.
4.3.6: Judicial Activism, Overreach, Restraint
Judicial Activism
Proactive role of judiciary to enforce citizen's rights and achieve social justice. Go beyond applicable law to consider societal implications. Manifests as expansion of FRs (Art 21), relaxation of locus standi (PILs), directions for executive/legislative action.
Judicial Overreach
When judiciary is perceived to interfere with legislative/executive functions by making laws or policies (traditionally their domain). Concerns: Violates separation of powers, judicial populism, lack of accountability in policy-making.
Judicial Restraint
Philosophy encouraging judges to limit their power. Judges should hesitate to strike down laws or create new policies unless clear constitutional violation, deferring to elected branches.
Maintaining the Balance
The ideal is to maintain a balance between judicial activism (for justice and rights protection), judicial restraint (respecting separation of powers), and avoiding judicial overreach. This balance is crucial for the health of a democratic system.
4.3.7: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Meaning & Evolution
- Litigation initiated not by aggrieved party, but by court or private party on behalf of public interest.
- Originated in US, introduced in India in 1980s.
- Pioneered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer.
- First landmark case: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) - undertrials.
Relaxation of 'Locus Standi'
Relaxed the traditional rule requiring direct personal interest. Any public-spirited citizen/organization can approach court on behalf of those who cannot (e.g., prisoners, bonded labourers, marginalized communities).
Scope & Significance
- Scope: Covers wide range of issues - environmental protection, human rights, prisoners' rights, child labor, consumer rights, administrative accountability.
- Significance: Democratized access to justice, fostered judicial activism & expansion of FRs, improved executive accountability, promoted social change.
Concerns & SC Guidelines
Critics argue PIL misused for private gain, publicity, or vexatious litigation ('Private Interest Litigation', 'Publicity Interest Litigation'). SC has issued guidelines to prevent misuse, emphasizing genuine public interest.
4.3.8: Current Issues & Challenges
Pendency of Cases
Massive backlog across all judicial levels (SC, HCs, subordinate courts) leading to significant delays in justice delivery.
Vacancies
Significant number of judicial vacancies at all levels, exacerbating pendency. A major point of debate in judicial appointment process.
Judicial Accountability & Transparency
- Appointments (Collegium): Criticism over lack of transparency, objective criteria, nepotism.
- Conduct & Removal: Difficult impeachment process. Calls for more efficient/transparent mechanisms for addressing complaints.
Cost of Litigation & Access to Justice
High costs, complex procedures, and delays make access to justice difficult for the common person, particularly the poor.
Inadequate Infrastructure
Inadequate courtrooms, digital infrastructure, staff, and other resources hinder efficient functioning across the judicial system.
Corruption Allegations
Isolated allegations, though few, undermine public trust. Mechanisms for addressing corruption are limited and often slow.
Technology in Judiciary (e-Courts)
e-Courts Project: Computerization of courts, online services, digital case management. Virtual Hearings: Accelerated during COVID-19.
- Successes: Increased efficiency, better case management, improved information access, reduced travel costs.
- Challenges: Digital divide, connectivity, technical literacy, data security, maintaining court solemnity.
Prelims-ready Notes
- Mandate: Apex Court, Guardian of Constitution/FRs, Interpreter, Federal Court, Integrated Judiciary.
- Composition (Art 124): CJI + 33 other Judges (Total 34). Parliament increases number.
- Appointment: CJI by President (seniority rule); Others by President after consultation with CJI (collegium).
- Evolution of Collegium: 1st Judges Case (Executive primacy) -> 2nd Judges Case (Judiciary primacy, CJI+2) -> 3rd Judges Case (CJI+4).
- NJAC (2014): Attempted to replace Collegium.
- 4th Judges Case (2015): Struck down NJAC, Collegium revived (violates independence of judiciary).
- Qualifications (Art 124(3)): Citizen, 5 yrs HC Judge OR 10 yrs HC Advocate OR Distinguished Jurist.
- Tenure: Till 65 years. Resign to President.
- Removal (Art 124(4)): President's order after Parl. address (special majority). Grounds: Proved misbehaviour/incapacity. No judge removed so far.
- Independence Safeguards: Mode of Appointment (Collegium), Security of Tenure, Fixed Service Conditions, Expenses Charged on CFI, Conduct of Judges not discussable (Art 121), Power to Punish for Contempt (Art 129), Freedom to Appoint Staff (Art 146), Jurisdiction cannot be curtailed, Separation from Executive (DPSP Art 50), Ban on Practice after Retirement (Art 124(7)).
- Original (Art 131): Exclusive disputes between GoI & States. Excludes inter-state water disputes.
- Writ (Art 32): Enforcement of FRs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo-Warranto). Concurrent with HCs (Art 226), but Art 32 itself is a FR.
- Appellate (Art 132, 133, 134, 134A, 136): Constitutional, Civil, Criminal, Special Leave Petition (Art 136 - very wide).
- Advisory (Art 143): President seeks advice (public importance - SC may advise, not binding; pre-Const. treaty - SC must advise, not binding).
- Court of Record (Art 129): Judgments binding, power to punish for contempt.
- Judicial Review: Examine constitutionality. Basic Structure (Minerva Mills).
- Other Powers: Complete Justice (Art 142 - wide power), Law declared by SC binding (Art 141), Review its own judgments (Art 137 - Curative Petition).
- Judicial Activism: Proactive role.
- Judicial Overreach: Encroachment on other branches.
- Judicial Restraint: Deference. Balance needed.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Dilution of Locus Standi. Pioneers: P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer.
- Challenges: Pendency, Vacancies, Accountability/Transparency (Collegium debates), Cost of Litigation, Infrastructure, Corruption, Technology (e-Courts).
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
Judicial Independence as a Basic Structure Element
- Detailed constitutional provisions for independence crucial.
- 'Independence of Judiciary' is Basic Structure (NJAC case).
- Allows SC to be fearless guardian of Constitution/FRs.
Evolution of Judicial Appointments: Collegium vs. NJAC
- Highlights tension between Executive & Judiciary over appointments.
- Debate: transparency, accountability, judicial independence.
- Ongoing need for robust Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
SC as Guardian of FRs and the Constitution
- Judicial Review (Art 13, 32, 226) upholds Rule of Law, limits govt power.
- Basic Structure Doctrine (Minerva Mills, I.R. Coelho) ensures constitutional spirit.
- Art 32 & PIL democratized justice, SC became voice of marginalized.
Judicial Activism vs. Overreach - A Necessary Balance
- Activism instrumental in protecting rights (Vishaka guidelines).
- Overreach concerns (encroaching legislative/executive domains) valid.
- Maintaining delicate balance for institutional harmony, democratic governance vital.
Role as a Federal Court
- Original Jurisdiction (Art 131) in inter-state and Centre-state disputes crucial.
- Maintains delicate balance of power in federal structure.
- Ensures peaceful, constitutional resolution of disputes.
Challenges Facing the Judiciary
- Pendency, vacancies, infrastructure deficiencies undermine timely justice.
- Debates on transparency (Collegium), accountability, and corruption highlight need for reforms.
- e-Courts project modernizes but faces implementation challenges.
Article 142 - Doing Complete Justice
- Extraordinary power for 'complete justice', even beyond existing laws.
- Empowers court to address unique injustices.
- Wide scope sometimes raises concerns about judicial creativity/overreach.
Significance in Governance
- Crucial check on executive and legislature.
- Promoter of social change.
- Guardian of India's democratic and constitutional values.
- Judgments shape public policy and governance.
Current Affairs & Recent Developments
SC Verdict on Abrogation of Art 370 (Dec 2023)
SC upheld abrogation, demonstrating Judicial Review over executive/legislative actions. Implications for federal structure and J&K status. Reaffirmed SC's role as ultimate interpreter.
Electoral Bonds Scheme Struck Down (Feb 2024)
SC declared scheme unconstitutional, emphasizing citizens' Right to Information (Art 19(1)(a)) and importance of free & fair elections. Powerful example of Judicial Review protecting fundamental rights.
New Criminal Laws (Dec 2023, effective July 2024)
Replacement of IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act will likely lead to future legal challenges before SC, testing constitutionality against Fundamental Rights (Art 20, 21, 22) and due process.
Appointments to SC & HCs
Collegium system continues. Recent appointments involve scrutiny and debates about system's efficiency, transparency, and filling vacancies, reinforcing 'Current Debates on Judicial Appointments'.
Virtual Hearings & e-Courts
Continued use and expansion of virtual hearings and e-Courts project (Phase III) show judiciary's embrace of technology to address pendency and enhance access to justice, while highlighting challenges.
UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims MCQs
1. UPSC CSE 2022: With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. No High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of any Central law.
2. An amendment to the Constitution of India can be initiated by an introduction of a Bill in the Lok Sabha only.
3. The Supreme Court of India has held that all the amendments to the Constitution of India made after 24th April 1973 are subject to judicial review.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1 and 3 only
Answer: (c)
Hint: Statement 3 is correct (Waman Rao case, Basic Structure Doctrine). Statement 1 is incorrect (HCs have jurisdiction under Art 226). Statement 2 is incorrect (Bill can be introduced in either House).
2. UPSC CSE 2018: The 'Basic Structure' doctrine of the Indian Constitution implies that:
(a) certain features of the Constitution are so essential to it that they cannot be amended.
(b) Fundamental Rights cannot be amended or taken away by Parliament.
(c) the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and cannot be altered.
(d) the power of judicial review is absolute and cannot be challenged by Parliament.
Answer: (a)
Hint: The Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case) defines limits on Parliament's amending power. Option (a) is the most accurate definition.
3. UPSC CSE 2017: Which one of the following is not included in the 'Right to Freedom' (Articles 19-22) in the Constitution of India?
(a) Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(b) Freedom of assembly, association and movement
(c) Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country
(d) Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
Answer: (a)
Hint: Option (a) is part of the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28), not the Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22).
Mains Questions
1. UPSC CSE 2022 (10 marks): "Discuss the role of the President of India as the guardian of the Constitution."
Direction: While primarily about the President, the answer could mention how the President's exercise of powers (e.g., assenting to bills, pardoning power) is sometimes subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, ensuring that even the head of state acts within constitutional bounds.
2. UPSC CSE 2020 (15 marks): "The independence of the judiciary is a sine qua non for a vibrant democracy. Elaborate, throwing light on the safeguards available to Indian judiciary."
Direction: This is a direct question on the Independence of the Supreme Court. Discuss all the constitutional safeguards (mode of appointment, security of tenure, fixed service conditions, conduct not discussed, contempt power, charged expenses, ban on practice). Emphasize how these safeguards enable the judiciary to act as guardian of the Constitution and protector of Fundamental Rights.
3. UPSC CSE 2017 (15 marks): "The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right. Discuss how this right is viewed in the Indian context and what are its implications for the individual and the state."
Direction: This question directly links to Article 21 and its expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court. Discuss the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) and how it further expanded the scope of Article 21, demonstrating judicial activism in safeguarding an un-enumerated right.
Original MCQs for Prelims
1. Consider the following statements regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India:
1. The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Government of India and one or more states.
2. Its writ jurisdiction is wider than that of a High Court, as the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights is itself a Fundamental Right.
3. Under its advisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is bound to give its opinion on any question of law or fact referred to it by the President.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct (Art 131). Statement 2 is incorrect. While the right to move the SC under Art 32 is a FR, the High Court's writ jurisdiction (Art 226) is wider as it can issue writs not only for FR enforcement but also for 'any other purpose' (i.e., enforcement of ordinary legal rights), unlike the SC which can only issue for FRs. Statement 3 is incorrect. The SC is bound to give its opinion only on disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties/agreements. For questions of law or fact of public importance, the SC may give its opinion, and it is not binding on the President (Art 143).
2. Which of the following elements have been declared as part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of India?
1. Independence of the Judiciary
2. Harmony and Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
3. Judicial Review
4. Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to do complete justice
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2, 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (d)
Explanation: All four elements listed have been explicitly declared by the Supreme Court as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Independence of Judiciary (NJAC case), Harmony of FRs/DPSPs (Minerva Mills case), Judicial Review (Minerva Mills case), and the SC's powers under Article 142 (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002; and later implicit in various judgments upholding its use).
Original Descriptive Questions for Mains
1. "The Supreme Court of India has evolved from being merely an interpreter of the Constitution to a proactive guardian of fundamental rights and constitutional principles, often facing accusations of judicial overreach." Discuss this transformative journey of the Supreme Court, analyzing the factors that facilitated this evolution and the challenges it presents to the principle of separation of powers. (15 marks)
Key Points/Structure:
- Introduction: SC's evolution from interpreter to 'proactive guardian'.
- Factors Facilitating Evolution: Expansive interpretation of FRs (Art 21), relaxation of Locus Standi (PIL), Judicial Activism, Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Challenges to Separation of Powers (Judicial Overreach): Policy-making by judiciary, legislating from bench, accountability concerns, blurring of lines.
- Conclusion: SC's proactive role crucial for social change, but balance with other organs paramount for democracy.
2. "The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court has been a contentious issue, oscillating between executive primacy and judicial primacy. This debate directly impacts the independence and accountability of the judiciary." Examine the evolution of the judicial appointment process in India, highlighting the arguments for and against the Collegium system, and suggesting potential reforms. (10 marks)
Key Points/Structure:
- Introduction: Judicial appointments as long-standing contentious issue.
- Evolution of Appointment Process: Initial phase (executive primacy) -> 1st Judges Case -> 2nd Judges Case (Collegium) -> 3rd Judges Case -> NJAC (99th Amend) -> 4th Judges Case (Collegium revived).
- Arguments For Collegium: Judicial independence, judges best placed to assess suitability, prevents politicization.
- Arguments Against Collegium: Lack of transparency/accountability, nepotism, limited talent pool, undermines democratic principle.
- Potential Reforms: MoP codification, external experts (without compromising independence), permanent secretariat, objective criteria, public consultations.
- Conclusion: Debate aims to balance independence with accountability/transparency for public trust.