Model Answer

Introduction

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, aimed to reform the appointment process of judges in the higher judiciary of India. However, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).

Supreme Court’s Judgment

In October 2015, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority verdict, struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, emphasizing the need to protect judicial independence.

Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability

1. Composition of NJAC: Critics argued that the inclusion of executive members and eminent persons in the NJAC undermined judicial independence. Proponents contended that this composition could enhance transparency and diversity in appointments, addressing the opaque nature of the collegium system .
2. Judicial Independence: The Court underscored the necessity of safeguarding judicial independence. Critics assert that the Court did not fully consider how the NJAC could improve transparency and accountability in the appointment process, which are significant concerns in the existing system .
3. Concentration of Power: Supporters of the NJAC argued that including non-judicial members would prevent the concentration of power within the judiciary. In contrast, critics feared that the NJAC might centralize power among the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and two senior-most judges, jeopardizing judicial independence .
4. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court held that the NJAC Act violated the basic structure doctrine, essential for maintaining the Constitution’s core features. Critics argue that this doctrine should not impede necessary reforms, especially given the longstanding criticisms of the collegium system .
5. Arbitrary Veto Power: The NJAC’s provision allowing any two members to block an appointment was deemed arbitrary by the Court. Critics contend that this was intended to foster consensus and that the Court’s concerns were based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence .

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s concerns about judicial independence are legitimate, critics argue that the NJAC Act represented a potential opportunity for reform that could have preserved judicial integrity while enhancing accountability. The reinstatement of the collegium system, criticized for its lack of transparency, left significant questions about future judicial appointments unresolved.

Model Answer

Introduction

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the democratic framework of the country through its power of judicial review. Judicial activism, particularly the introduction of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973), has been essential in safeguarding democratic ideals.

Protection of Fundamental Rights

Judicial activism has significantly enhanced the protection of fundamental rights. For instance, Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that this right includes the right to live with dignity. Furthermore, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), the Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, demonstrating the judiciary’s proactive stance in evolving human rights jurisprudence.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a vital tool for judicial activism in India. The Supreme Court’s decision in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing any citizen to seek legal remedies in matters of public interest. This democratization of access to justice empowers marginalized voices and promotes accountability.

Environmental Jurisprudence

The judiciary has also actively protected the environment, linking it to the right to life under Article 21. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986), judicial interventions led to the closure of polluting industries in Delhi, exemplifying the judiciary’s commitment to environmental justice.

Upholding Secularism and Social Justice

Judicial activism has been crucial in upholding secularism, as seen in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), and promoting social justice, exemplified by the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, which established guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.

Conclusion

Overall, judicial activism has played a significant role in the evolution of Indian democracy by enforcing rights and ensuring accountability. While debates on the balance between judicial activism and restraint continue, the judiciary’s proactive role remains vital in protecting the democratic fabric of the nation.