Home/upsc: judiciary/Page 5
- Recent Questions
- Most Answered
- Answers
- No Answers
- Most Visited
- Most Voted
- Random
- Bump Question
- New Questions
- Sticky Questions
- Polls
- Followed Questions
- Favorite Questions
- Recent Questions With Time
- Most Answered With Time
- Answers With Time
- No Answers With Time
- Most Visited With Time
- Most Voted With Time
- Random With Time
- Bump Question With Time
- New Questions With Time
- Sticky Questions With Time
- Polls With Time
- Followed Questions With Time
- Favorite Questions With Time
Discuss the provisions for judicial accountability and the mechanisms for disciplining errant judges in India. Examine the role of the Impeachment process, the In-house Procedure, and other accountability measures. Compare the Indian approach with the practices for holding judges accountable in other democratic nations.
India has a well-established system for judicial accountability, with multiple mechanisms to discipline errant judges. The Constitution of India provides for the impeachment of judges, while the in-house procedure and other accountability measures complement this process. Impeachment Process:Read more
India has a well-established system for judicial accountability, with multiple mechanisms to discipline errant judges. The Constitution of India provides for the impeachment of judges, while the in-house procedure and other accountability measures complement this process.
Impeachment Process:
– Grounds for impeachment: proven misbehavior or incapacity (Article 124(4) and 217(1)(b))
– Initiation: either house of Parliament can initiate impeachment proceedings
– Investigation: a committee investigates allegations and submits a report
– Voting: a two-thirds majority in both houses is required for impeachment
In-house Procedure:
– Internal mechanism for addressing complaints against judges
– Confidential inquiry by a panel of judges
– Recommendations for action, including warning, censure, or request for resignation
Other Accountability Measures:
– Judicial Accountability Bill, 2012 (lapsed): aimed to establish an independent complaints commission
– National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 (struck down): aimed to regulate judicial appointments and transfers
– In-service training and continuing education for judges
Comparison with Other Democratic Nations:
– United States: impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate
– United Kingdom: disciplinary proceedings by the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
– Australia: parliamentary commissions and judicial conduct commissioners investigate complaints
– Canada: Canadian Judicial Council investigates complaints and recommends disciplinary action
Analysis:
– India’s impeachment
See lessAnalyze the concept of judicial review in the Indian constitutional system. Discuss the scope and limitations of this power, the role of the Supreme Court and High Courts in exercising it, and the implications for the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Judicial review is a crucial concept in the Indian constitutional system, empowering the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The scope of judicial review in India is extensive, allowing the Supreme Court and High Courts to: 1. Declare laws and government actionRead more
1. Declare laws and government actions unconstitutional (Article 13 and 32)
2. Interpret the Constitution and laws (Article 141 and 226)
3. Issue writs and directions to protect fundamental rights (Article 32 and 226)
4. Review administrative actions and policies (Article 14 and 21)
Limitations:
1. Political questions: Courts generally avoid deciding political questions, leaving them to the elected branches.
2. Policy decisions: Courts refrain from interfering with policy decisions, unless they violate the Constitution or laws.
3. Separation of powers: Courts respect the legislative and executive branches’ domains, avoiding unnecessary interference.
Role of the Supreme Court and High Courts:
1. Guardian of the Constitution: Ensuring its provisions are upheld and protected.
2. Interpreter: Providing authoritative interpretations of the Constitution and laws.
3. Protector of fundamental rights: Enforcing these rights and ensuring their protection.
4. Check on government power: Preventing abuse of power and ensuring accountability.
Implications:
1. Separation of powers: Judicial review ensures that each branch respects the others’ domains.
2. System of checks and balances: Preventing any one branch from dominating the others.
3. Protection of individual rights: Ensuring that the government does not infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights.
4. Promoting the rule of law: Ensuring that the Constitution and laws are upheld and enforced.
In conclusion, judicial review is a vital component of India’s constitutional system, empowering the judiciary to protect the Constitution, individual rights, and the rule of law. While there are limitations to this power, the Supreme Court and High Courts play a crucial role in exercising judicial review, maintaining the system of checks and balances, and ensuring the separation of powers.
See lessDo you agree with the view that there is a need to enact a new law for ensuring judicial accountability in India?
Judicial accountability is defined as the set of mechanisms aimed at making judges and courts personally or institutionally responsible for behaviours and decisions contrary to constitutional or legal standards. To ensure judicial accountability, the Indian Constitution provides Article 124 and 217Read more
Judicial accountability is defined as the set of mechanisms aimed at making judges and courts personally or institutionally responsible for behaviours and decisions contrary to constitutional or legal standards. To ensure judicial accountability, the Indian Constitution provides Article 124 and 217 (related to removal of judges), Article 235 (control of High Courts over the subordinate judiciary), Article 137 (curative petition), etc. and the Supreme Court has given itself guidelines for general behaviour of judges under the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life in 1997.
However, multiple challenges exist in ensuring the judicial accountability in India:
Considering these challenges, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (JSA Bill) attempted to lay down certain judicial standards, introducing accountability mechanisms and establishing less cumbersome processes for the removal of judges across India. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2010, and passed by it in 2012 after it had been put through a Standing Committee scrutiny. But it could not be taken up in the Rajya Sabha as Parliament was adjourned.
In light of these circumstances, there is a need to enact a new law for ensuring judicial accountability:
Though the law on judicial accountability will be a step to restore some of the fundamental values of integrity and transparency in the judicial architecture, it is necessary to strike a balance between independence of judiciary and judicial accountability.
See lessWhat is the Doctrine of Severability? Discuss with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
The Doctrine of Severability or Separability states that when some of the provisions of a statute becomes unconstitutional on account of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, only the repugnant provision of the law in question shall be treated by the courts as void, and not the whole statute. FeatuRead more
The Doctrine of Severability or Separability states that when some of the provisions of a statute becomes unconstitutional on account of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, only the repugnant provision of the law in question shall be treated by the courts as void, and not the whole statute.
Features of the Doctrine of Severability:
Application of Doctrine of Severability in India:
The Doctrine of Severability in the Constitution of India is a pre-eminent principle to protect the Fundamental Rights of every citizen of the country. It is an acid test to validate any law that was enacted either in the present Parliament/Legislative Assemblies or in the pre-constitutional period against the Fundamental Rights.
See lessWhat do you understand by judicial activism and overreach? Also discuss the associated concerns.
<strong>Answer:</strong> <p style="padding-left: 40px;"><strong>Judicial activism</strong> is a judicial philosophy that motivates the judiciary to depart from the traditional precedents in favor of progressive and new social policies. It is manifested when the SupremeRead more
<strong>Answer:</strong> <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”><strong>Judicial activism</strong> is a judicial philosophy that motivates the judiciary to depart from the traditional precedents in favor of progressive and new social policies. It is manifested when the Supreme Court or High Court compels the authorities to act and sometimes also directs the government, government policies, and the administration. Instances of judicial activism include directing the Centre to create new policy to handle drought, directing the Centre to set up a bad loans panel. <strong>Judicial Overreach</strong> refers to an extreme form of judicial activism where arbitrary and unreasonable interventions are made by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive. This is a situation where the court encroaches upon the role of the legislature by making laws. For example, some have argued that the court’s decision on closing the issuing of licenses for new liquor shops in and around highways, was a case of judicial overreach. <strong>Reasons for</strong> judicial activism as well as judicial overreach in a democracy like India can be attributed to various factors like asymmetry of power, Public Interest Litigations, lackadaisical approach of other organs and various other factors like growing consciousness of people for their rights, globalization, active media and civil society organizations, concerns for the environment among others.</p> <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”>While the higher courts have done a tremendous amount of good for the public through judicial activism; however, in many cases, the judiciary has used excess powers, which transcend the normal bounds of judicial activism. Such judicial overreach has given rise to the following concerns:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Undermining the doctrine of the separation of powers:</strong> The power vested in the Supreme Court through Article 142 of the Constitution is extraordinary. Frequent use of this power may be considered as a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers.</li> <li><strong>Oversight of the challenges faced by legislature and executive:</strong> Sometimes the judiciary passes the order without keeping in mind fund, function, framework, and functionary (4 F) that limit the work of the legislature and the executive. For example, cancelling of coal blocks allocations and spectrum allocations led to the poor health of the financial institutions of the country.</li> <li><strong>Lack of accountability towards people:</strong> Judiciary as an institution is not accountable to the people in the same way as the legislature and the executive are. Further, the judiciary also has the power to punish for ‘contempt of court. This way the judiciary may evade public criticism for many of its actions.</li> <li><strong>Threat to the credibility of the judiciary:</strong> Frequent transgressions in the domains of the legislature and the executive may diminish the image of the judiciary.</li> </ul> The Supreme Court has often highlighted the importance of judicial restraint. The judiciary must, therefore, exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to act as a super-legislature. Judicial activism is appropriate when it is in the domain of legitimate judicial review. However, it should not be a norm nor should it result in judicial overreach.
See less