Model Answer

The Conflict Between Internet Access and Shutdowns in India

In recent years, India has grappled with the tension between ensuring public order through internet shutdowns and upholding citizens’ fundamental right to access the internet. The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in 2016 recognized internet access as a fundamental human right, and the Indian Supreme Court has affirmed this stance by declaring it a fundamental right under Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution in landmark cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020) and Faheema Shirin (2019). Despite this, the Indian government frequently imposes internet shutdowns to maintain law and order, citing concerns such as national security, preventing misinformation, and curbing public unrest.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

The frequent internet shutdowns raise significant concerns about the violation of fundamental rights. According to the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), shutdowns restrict the right to livelihood, especially in sectors like e-commerce and information technology, which are highly dependent on internet access. Moreover, Faheema Shirin (2019) emphasized that access to the internet is crucial for the right to life and liberty, particularly for education and access to information. Thus, frequent shutdowns infringe upon citizens’ ability to live with dignity and fully participate in society.

Disproportionate and Unlawful Bans

While internet shutdowns are often imposed with the intent to control violence or prevent the spread of misinformation, they are sometimes enacted on disproportionate grounds. In states like Rajasthan and West Bengal, shutdowns have been imposed to prevent cheating during exams, a decision that has little connection to the scale of disruption caused. This raises concerns about the lack of effective safeguards in the current legal framework. Despite the 2017 Suspension Rules, shutdowns are still often enforced under Section 144 of the CrPC, which lacks procedural transparency and accountability.

Path Forward

To resolve this issue, it is imperative to establish clearer principles of proportionality and more stringent oversight mechanisms. The Indian Telecommunications Bill, 2022 should incorporate the Supreme Court’s directions on internet shutdowns. Additionally, review committees must be strengthened, with the inclusion of non-official members like retired judges to ensure transparency. Rather than blanket shutdowns, targeted restrictions should be considered, focusing on specific services rather than entire networks.

In conclusion, while the government’s use of internet shutdowns may be motivated by public safety concerns, their frequent and indiscriminate nature undermines fundamental rights. A more balanced and transparent approach is necessary to ensure that the right to access the internet is protected.

Model Answer

Importance of Improving Administration of Justice at Lower Levels of the Judiciary

Improving the administration of justice at the lower levels of the judiciary is essential for enhancing the overall justice delivery system in India. The District and Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, and Civil Judge Courts serve as the first point of contact for citizens seeking justice, making their role crucial in ensuring timely and fair resolution of disputes.

Addressing Backlog and Pendency of Cases

A major challenge in India’s judicial system is the high pendency of cases. According to the Department of Justice, there is a backlog of approximately 4.15 crore cases in subordinate courts. This backlog, compounded by slow disposal rates, creates a vicious cycle of delay, contributing to a massive delay in justice for litigants. Addressing this issue at the lower court level will reduce the caseload burden on higher courts and expedite the resolution process for all levels of the judiciary.

Tackling Judicial Vacancies and Administrative Challenges

Another critical issue is the 23% vacancy of judges at the district level. Delays in judicial appointments further exacerbate this situation, leading to a shortage of manpower and slow case disposal. The administrative burden on judges, due to insufficient staff and resources, also diverts their focus from adjudicating cases. By streamlining judicial appointments and increasing staff support, the lower judiciary could function more efficiently.

Enhancing Infrastructure and Technological Advancements

Inadequate infrastructure, including poorly maintained courtrooms and insufficient record-keeping facilities, hampers the functioning of lower courts. Improvements in court infrastructure and the digitization of records, as advocated by initiatives like the eCourts Mission Mode Project, can significantly boost efficiency. Technological solutions for case management, scheduling, and monitoring would streamline the process, reducing delays and errors.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

The promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, such as arbitration and mediation, can alleviate the pressure on lower courts by offering quicker and cost-effective dispute resolution options. By integrating ADR into the justice delivery system, the burden on the judiciary can be reduced, leading to faster justice for the public.

Conclusion

Strengthening the lower judiciary through reforms in infrastructure, staffing, technology, and case management is pivotal in improving overall justice delivery. A more efficient and accessible lower judiciary will enhance access to justice and reduce delays, ultimately contributing to a fairer and more effective legal system in India.

Model Answers

Introduction

The timely resolution of court cases is fundamental to ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. However, judicial pendency, or the backlog of pending cases, has become a significant challenge in India. As of recent reports, over 4.70 crore cases remain pending across various courts. This delay undermines public trust in the judiciary and hampers the delivery of justice.

Factors Contributing to Judicial Pendency

1. Poor State of Subordinate Judiciary: District courts suffer from inadequate infrastructure and poor working conditions, leading to slow case resolution.
2. Impact of COVID-19: The pandemic further worsened pendency, with the National Judicial Data Grid reporting a 27% increase in pending cases from December 2019 to April 2022.
3. Shortage of Judges: India has only 20 judges per lakh population, which is insufficient. By April 2021, 38% of High Court positions were vacant.
4. Government as a Major Litigant: The government is involved in nearly 50% of pending cases, many of which are inter-departmental disputes.
5. Vague Laws and Drafting Issues: Outdated and poorly drafted laws, along with differing interpretations, contribute to prolonged litigation.

Measures to Address Pendency

1. Government Litigation Reduction: Platforms like LIMBS and AMRD aim to monitor and reduce government-related litigation.
2. Fast-Track Courts: Established to handle a large volume of cases within a set time frame.
3. Promoting ADR: The government is encouraging alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration and mediation.
4. Technological Integration: The e-Courts project and SUPACE are enhancing court efficiency using technology and artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

Addressing judicial pendency requires continued reforms in infrastructure, judicial staffing, and technological integration to improve access to justice and the efficiency of the judicial system.

Sources:

• Department of Justice data
• National Judicial Data Grid

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.