Model Answer

Introduction

The role of the judiciary in India has evolved significantly over time. Traditionally tasked with restricting government actions, the judiciary has increasingly played an active role in policy formulation. This shift raises important questions about its influence in shaping laws and public policy, often stepping in where the legislature has failed to act.

Judiciary’s Positive Contribution to Policy Formulation:

1. Addressing Legislative Inaction:
   • Fact: In cases where the legislature failed to pass crucial reforms, the judiciary intervened and directed necessary changes.
   • Example: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a fundamental right, which led to significant policy changes and the eventual enactment of the Right to Education (RTE) Act in 2009.
2. Protecting Fundamental Rights:
   • Fact: The judiciary has actively safeguarded the rights of marginalized communities when government actions were deemed discriminatory.
   • Example: In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality, ensuring the protection of LGBTQ+ rights under the Constitution.
3. Promoting Evidence-Based Policymaking:
   • Fact: Judicial rulings have been instrumental in shaping evidence-based policies.
   • Example: In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court’s directives on controlling air pollution played a key role in framing environmental policies.
4. Enhancing Public Participation:
   • Fact: Judicial interventions through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have encouraged civic engagement and policy reform.
   • Example: PIL cases have led to significant public awareness and governmental accountability in areas like healthcare, education, and environmental protection.
5. Filling Regulatory Gaps:
   • Fact: The judiciary has stepped in to develop regulations when necessary.
   • Example: The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Forest Conservation Act case addressed gaps in forest preservation policies.

Critical View

1. Undermining Legislative Supremacy:
   • Fact: The judiciary’s intervention can undermine the authority of the elected legislature.
   • Example: In the case of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014), the Supreme Court struck down the law, asserting its control over judicial appointments, which many saw as judicial overreach.
2. Lack of Expertise:
   • Fact: The judiciary may lack the specific expertise needed to formulate complex policies, leading to potential missteps.
   • Example: The firecracker ban in Delhi (2018) aimed at controlling pollution, but was criticized for its impractical implementation without adequate consultation with experts.
3. Erosion of Accountability:
   • Fact: Heavy judicial intervention may shift accountability away from elected representatives.
   • Example: Judicial involvement in environmental issues, such as air pollution control, can divert attention from governmental responsibility and transparency.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s expanded role in policy formulation has both advantages and drawbacks. While it plays a critical role in addressing legislative gaps and protecting rights, its growing influence must be balanced carefully with the democratic principles of legislative supremacy and executive accountability. It is essential that the judiciary complements, rather than replaces, the legislative and executive branches in ensuring effective governance.

Model Answer

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over time, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of this fundamental right, interpreting it beyond mere physical existence to encompass a wide range of human needs and dignity.

Right to Livelihood: Olga Tellis (1986)

In Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986), the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include the right to livelihood. The Court held that no one can live without the means of subsistence, thereby extending the scope of Article 21 to encompass the right to earn a living as a fundamental component of life.

Right to Medical Assistance: Pt. Parmanand Katara (1989)

In Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India (1989), the Court ruled that medical professionals are obligated to provide urgent medical care to all individuals, regardless of their background or financial status. This decision expanded Article 21 to include the right to immediate medical treatment, reflecting the right to life as encompassing health care.

Right to a Healthy Environment: Subhash Kumar (1991)

The Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991) judgment further extended Article 21, declaring that the right to life includes the right to live in a pollution-free environment. This ruling emphasized the State’s responsibility to ensure access to clean air and water, which are essential for survival and well-being.

Right to Privacy: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017) case marked a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court held that privacy is an essential aspect of human dignity, thus expanding the interpretation of personal liberty.

Right to Die with Dignity: Common Cause (2018)

In Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018), the Court recognized the right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia. This ruling acknowledged that the right to life also includes the right to choose the manner and timing of one’s death, further broadening the scope of personal liberty.

Right to Protection from Climate Change: MK Ranjitsinh (2024)

The Supreme Court, in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India (2024), recognized the right to be free from the harmful effects of climate change as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. This ruling reflects the Court’s recognition of environmental factors as critical to the protection of human life and dignity.

Through these evolving interpretations, the scope of Article 21 has significantly expanded, ensuring a broader, more inclusive protection of fundamental rights in India.

Model Answers

Key Issues Related to Judicial Accountability in India

1. Appointment of Judges
   The current collegium system, where judges select other judges, concentrates power in the hands of a few. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the judiciary becoming a self-perpetuating body, potentially undermining impartiality. (Source: Article 124, Constitution of India)
2. Opacity in Judicial Procedures
   The absence of statutory backing for procedures like case allocation, judicial appointments, and disciplinary actions leads to a lack of transparency in the functioning of the judiciary. (Source: Judicial Charter 1997)
3. Conduct of Judges
   Article 121 restricts discussions in Parliament regarding judges’ conduct, which can result in limited external scrutiny. This has led to cases of misconduct being self-regulated by the judiciary itself, raising concerns over impartiality in such reviews. (Source: Article 121, Constitution of India)
4. Information Asymmetry
   The Right to Information (RTI) Act does not apply fully to judicial proceedings, particularly regarding judges’ personal information. While the office of the Chief Justice was brought under RTI in 2019, there are still limits on public access to judicial processes. (Source: RTI Act 2005, SC Judgment 2019)

Measures to Enhance Judicial Accountability

1. Reform the Collegium System
   Parliament should pass legislation to amend the collegium system, making judicial appointments more transparent and inclusive.
2. Introduce Statutory Law for Judicial Standards
   A law setting clear standards and accountability mechanisms for judges should be enacted to address current gaps.
3. Technology and Transparency
   Increased use of technology, including digital records and monitoring of case lifecycles, would enhance transparency and efficiency.
4. Formalized Code of Conduct
   A binding and comprehensive code of conduct for judges, enforceable by law, would improve accountability.
5. Regular Reports on Judicial Performance
   Publishing annual performance reports, like those from the Orissa High Court, would ensure consistent scrutiny and accountability.

By implementing these measures, the judiciary can maintain its independence while improving its accountability.