Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Examine how the fundamental structure doctrine is applied in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Talk about how this theory has developed, how it affects the amendment process, and how the Supreme Court has used its judicial review authority. Compare it to other ...
Talk about the Indian court system’s organization and hierarchy. Examine the duties, authority, and jurisdiction of the High Courts, the Supreme Court, and lower courts. Compare the court systems of various significant common law and civil law jurisdictions with the ...
INTRODUCTION: The judiciary is considered as the watchdog of democracy, and also the guardian of the Constitution that interprets the law, settles disputes and administers justice to all citizens. JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES: India has a single integrated judicial system with the SuprRead more
INTRODUCTION:
The judiciary is considered as the watchdog of democracy, and also the guardian of the Constitution that interprets the law, settles disputes and administers justice to all citizens.
JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
India has a single integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court (SC) at the top followed by High Courts and the district and subordinate courts.
SUPREME COURT
HIGH COURT
DISTRICT COURT – Deals with cases arising in the districts.
SUBORDINATE COURTS – Consider the cases of civil and criminal nature.
COMPARISION:
| INDIA | US
|
| Single-Judicial System.
|
Double System. |
| Procedure Established by Law. | Due Process of Law. |
| Judicial Review is limited | Judicial Review is wider
|
| Jurisdiction and power can be enlarged by parliament. | Jurisdiction and power can be limited to that conferred by the constitution. |
| It has advisory jurisdiction | No advisory jurisdiction
|
CONCLUSION:
The Constitution of India played a crucial role which are enforced from time to time to strengthen the judicial system of the country. The three-layer judicial system is necessary for the proper functioning of the judiciary in India to ensure proper justice to the citizens of a country.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing Introduction Start by referencing the MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) case, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to protection from climate change as linked to the right to life under Article ...
Model Answer Judiciary's Role in Constitutionalization of Environmental Issues The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in recognizing the interconnection between fundamental rights and environmental protection. This role has been instrumental in the constitutionalization of environmentaRead more
The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in recognizing the interconnection between fundamental rights and environmental protection. This role has been instrumental in the constitutionalization of environmental issues, often expanding the scope of rights under the Indian Constitution.
In the recent MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to be free from the harmful effects of climate change is integral to the right to life under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. This landmark judgment further solidified the judiciary’s role in extending fundamental rights to include environmental concerns.
The judiciary’s contribution to environmental constitutionalism is evident in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (2000). Here, the Supreme Court emphasized that disturbances to basic environmental elements like air, water, and soil would be detrimental to life, thus making environmental protection a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2004), the Court ruled on the necessity of adhering to sustainable development practices while permitting mining activities. The judgment highlighted that sustainable development is aligned with Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g), demonstrating the judiciary’s commitment to balancing development with environmental protection.
The Kerala High Court, in PA Jacob vs. the Superintendent of Police Kottayam (1993), clarified that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to using loudspeakers in a way that disturbs public peace, reinforcing the importance of environmental considerations in public rights.
In Cooverjee B. Bharucha vs. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer (1954), the Court emphasized that when environmental protection conflicts with the right to freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g), a balance must be struck, ensuring that economic activities do not compromise environmental sustainability.
Through these significant rulings, the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping environmental jurisprudence, weaving together constitutional provisions and human rights to safeguard the environment. This judicial activism has led to the constitutionalization of environmental rights, making the protection of the environment an essential aspect of fundamental rights in India.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Introduce the issue: Start by acknowledging that access to the internet is considered a fundamental right by the Indian Supreme Court. Then, highlight the growing trend of internet shutdowns imposed by the government to maintain public ...
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)Read more
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.
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.
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.
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.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction: Set the Context (40-50 words) What are Tribunals? Begin by briefly explaining what tribunals are, their constitutional basis, and their purpose. Mention the constitutional amendments and their role in easing the burden on the judiciary.Example: “Tribunals ...
Model Answer Challenges Faced by Tribunals in India Tribunals were introduced in India through the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution under Articles 323A and 323B to reduce the burden on the judiciary and expedite the resolution of disputes. However, while tribunals aimed at easing judicial congestiRead more
Tribunals were introduced in India through the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution under Articles 323A and 323B to reduce the burden on the judiciary and expedite the resolution of disputes. However, while tribunals aimed at easing judicial congestion, they have encountered significant challenges over the years.
One of the major concerns surrounding tribunals in India is the appointment process of tribunal members. The central government appoints the Chairperson and other members, which leads to a perceived breach of the separation of powers. Judicial independence is compromised when the executive is involved in judicial appointments, especially in cases where the executive itself is a party to the dispute (Source: Constitutional Law of India by H.M. Seervai).
Despite being established to address case backlog, tribunals themselves are burdened with a high pendency of cases. For instance, as of December 2022, over 80,000 cases were pending before various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Source: Annual Report of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022). This backlog is a result of systemic inefficiencies, absenteeism, and overwork of tribunal members.
Vacancies in tribunals are another significant problem. As of March 2021, the Armed Forces Tribunal had 23 vacant posts out of a sanctioned strength of 34 members, rendering several benches dysfunctional (Source: Ministry of Defence Annual Report). This hampers the tribunals’ ability to function effectively and delay justice.
The frequent appointment of retired judges and bureaucrats to tribunal positions has raised concerns about the loss of judicial independence. These appointments, often influenced by political considerations, may compromise the objectivity of decision-making (Source: Indian Journal of Public Administration).
The lack of uniformity in the functioning of various tribunals—especially concerning service conditions, tenure, and reappointment processes—adds to the complexity of their administration. Tribunals operating under different ministries face challenges due to inconsistent governance standards (Source: Report of the Law Commission of India).
To address these challenges, it is essential to ensure tribunals’ autonomy, impartial appointments, and uniformity across different bodies. Additionally, a National Tribunals Commission could provide a regulatory framework to enhance the effectiveness and independence of tribunals in India.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing Introduction: Briefly introduce the concept of undertrial prisoners in India and their legal status. Highlight the significance of human rights in the context of the criminal justice system. Mention the importance of addressing the shortcomings in the criminal justice system ...
Model Answer Introduction Undertrial prisoners form a significant portion of India's prison population, accounting for 77.1% of the total inmates in 2022, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The systemic deficiencies in the Indian criminal justice system lead to severe human rights violRead more
Undertrial prisoners form a significant portion of India’s prison population, accounting for 77.1% of the total inmates in 2022, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The systemic deficiencies in the Indian criminal justice system lead to severe human rights violations for these prisoners.
Overcrowding is a major issue in Indian prisons, with the occupancy rate reaching 118.5% in 2019 (NCRB). This results in substandard living conditions for undertrials, including inadequate accommodation, poor healthcare, and insufficient food. These conditions directly violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The slow judicial process is another significant challenge. As of December 2021, 70.9% of undertrial prisoners had been confined for up to one year, often without a verdict. This delay violates their right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Custodial abuse remains prevalent, with incidents of torture and deaths in custody. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 17,146 people died in judicial or police custody between 2010 and 2020—an alarming statistic that highlights the abuse faced by undertrials.
Most undertrials come from marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In Tamil Nadu, for example, two-thirds of undertrials belong to these groups, highlighting systemic inequality.
To address these deficiencies, expediting the judicial process and providing affordable bail options are crucial. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has already set aside Rs. 20 crores annually for financial assistance to poor prisoners to secure bail.
Courts must adhere to procedural mandates to prevent arbitrary arrests, as emphasized in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014). Further, comprehensive legal aid, vocational training programs, and the passing of the Prevention of Torture Bill (2010) would significantly improve conditions for undertrials.
By implementing these reforms, India can mitigate the systemic issues in its criminal justice system, ensuring justice, dignity, and human rights for all undertrial prisoners.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Contextualize the Question: Start by establishing the significance of the judiciary in India’s democratic system and the role of lower courts in ensuring access to justice. Fact: In India, the District and Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, ...
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 MagistrRead more
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See lessRoadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Define the Principle of Separation of Powers: Briefly explain the doctrine of separation of powers, which ensures the independence of the three branches of government: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Mention how the Indian Constitution reflects ...
Model Answers Introduction: Separation of Powers in India The doctrine of separation of powers is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that each branch of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—operates independently without infringing upon the functions of the oRead more
The doctrine of separation of powers is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that each branch of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—operates independently without infringing upon the functions of the others. Articles 122, 121, and 212 provide mechanisms to maintain this separation between the Legislature and Judiciary, with the aim to prevent judicial overreach.
Despite these constitutional provisions, judicial activism in India has often blurred the lines between the roles of the Legislature and the Judiciary. Judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary intervenes in matters traditionally within the domain of the legislature, arguing that the courts have a role in addressing issues of public concern.
Judicial activism in the form of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has seen the judiciary stepping into legislative roles. For example, in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down sexual harassment guidelines for workplaces, assuming a legislative function until Parliament passed a law. This was viewed as the judiciary encroaching upon the legislative domain.
Another example of judicial activism is the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case, where the Court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, invoking the “basic structure” doctrine. Similarly, in striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, the Supreme Court intervened in a matter that could be considered the domain of the legislature.
While judicial activism can play a crucial role in enforcing constitutional principles and protecting citizens’ rights, it raises concerns about judicial overreach when the judiciary impinges upon legislative powers. Therefore, maintaining a balance is essential for upholding the principle of separation of powers in India.
Sources:
Roadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction (100-120 words) Define judicial pendency: Briefly explain judicial pendency as the backlog of unresolved cases in courts. Importance of timely resolution: Highlight why the timely resolution of court cases is vital for upholding the rule of law ...
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 penRead more
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.
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:
Roadmap for Answer Writing Introduction (30-40 words) Briefly introduce Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. State the significance of judicial interpretation in expanding the scope of this fundamental right. Historical Background (50-60 words) Mention the initial interpretation of Article 21, which was limited to protecting ...
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 toRead more
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See less
The doctrine of basic structure is a foundational principle in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be amended by Parliament. Here’s an assessment of this doctrine, its evolution, implications for amendments, anRead more
The doctrine of basic structure is a foundational principle in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be amended by Parliament. Here’s an assessment of this doctrine, its evolution, implications for amendments, and comparison with approaches in other countries:
Doctrine of Basic Structure in Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence:
Evolution of the Doctrine:
Origin: The doctrine emerged from the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court articulated that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its basic structure.
Basic Structure: The Court did not explicitly define the components of the basic structure but identified certain core principles such as democracy, judicial review, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law as part of it.
Subsequent Cases: The doctrine has been reaffirmed and elaborated in various subsequent cases, solidifying its status as a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional law.
Implications for the Amendment Process:
Limitations on Parliament: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution except those aspects identified as part of the basic structure.
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court has the authority to review constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the basic structure. This judicial review power acts as a check on parliamentary supremacy.
Exercise of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court:
Guardian of the Constitution: The Supreme Court has been proactive in interpreting and safeguarding the basic structure doctrine. It has struck down amendments that were deemed to violate the basic structure, thereby protecting constitutional principles from potential abuse by legislative majorities.
Balancing Act: While upholding the doctrine, the Court has also shown restraint, acknowledging the legitimate authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution within permissible limits.
Comparison with Approaches in Other Countries:
United States:
Constitutional Amendments: Amendments to the US Constitution require a rigorous process involving approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Judicial Review: The US Supreme Court has the authority to review legislative and executive actions to ensure they conform to the Constitution but does not explicitly apply a doctrine similar to basic structure. However, principles like separation of powers and federalism serve as fundamental pillars protected through judicial review.
Germany:
Basic Law (Constitution): The German Constitutional Court interprets and protects the Basic Law, which includes principles like human dignity, federalism, and the rule of law.
Amendment Process: Amendments to the Basic Law require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament. The Constitutional Court can review amendments for compliance with basic law principles.
South Africa:
Constitutional Principles: The South African Constitution includes foundational values and principles that cannot be amended, such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
See lessAmendment Process: Amendments require approval by two-thirds of the National Assembly and six out of nine provincial legislatures. The Constitutional Court can review amendments for consistency with constitutional principles.
Conclusion:
The doctrine of basic structure in Indian constitutional jurisprudence represents a critical safeguard against arbitrary changes to fundamental constitutional principles by ensuring that certain core features remain inviolable. It underscores the Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of the Constitution, balancing parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional principles. Compared to other countries, India’s approach to constitutional amendments and judicial review, particularly through the basic structure doctrine, demonstrates a unique adaptation to protect foundational constitutional values while allowing for necessary adaptations over time.