PIB Summary- 24th April, 2021 | PIB (Press Information Bureau) Summary - UPSC PDF Download

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

Context: Chief Justice of India sworn in.

Details

• Justice NV Ramana was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India.

Collegium System Latest Development

In March 2021, the Supreme Court asked the government to clarify the status of 55 recommendations made by the Collegium for judicial appointments to High Courts six months to nearly a year-and-a-half ago. The Supreme Court has been repeatedly conveying to the government its growing concerns about the judicial vacancies in High Courts.

The Constitution of India – Article 124: Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court say that:

• There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges.
• Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his/her hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in the States as President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years.
• In judicial appointments, it is obligatory for the President to take into account the opinion of the Chief Justice of India.
• The opinion of the Chief Justice of India is binding on the Government. The opinion of the CJI must be formed after due consultation with a collegium of at least four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• Even if two judges give an adverse opinion, then he should not send the recommendation to the Government.

Timeline for changes in the appointment procedures

After independence, India adopted the Constitution in 1950. According to the Constitution, up to 1973, the President appointed the Chief Justice of India and remaining judges of the Supreme Court in consultation with the CJI and other judges as he deemed necessary.

1. Appointment of CJI 1950-1973
   • Until 1973, there existed a consensus between the Government of the day and the Chief Justice of India.
   • A convention was formed where the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was to be appointed as the Chief Justice of India.
   • In 1973, A.N.Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India. This violated the convention formed earlier since Justice A.N.Ray superseded three other Supreme Court judges senior to him.
   • Again in 1977, another chief justice was appointed who superseded his seniors.
   • This resulted in a clash between the Executive and the Judiciary.
2. First judges case, 1982
   • A petition was filed in 1982 in the Supreme Court of India.
   • This case is known as the S.P.Gupta Case or First Judges case.
   • The Supreme Court discussed 2 major points during the proceedings of this case
   • When asked the Supreme Court of India whether the word “consultation” in the constitutional article 124 mean “concurrence”; the Supreme court overruled this and denied saying that Consultation does not mean concurrence. The President was not bound to make a decision based on the consultation of the Supreme Court.
   • Another important point in the discussion, in this case, was the part where the Supreme Court decided that a High Court Judge can be transferred to any other high court of a state even against his will.
3. Second judges case,1993
   • Another petition was filed in 1993 by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCARA).
   • In this case, the Supreme court overruled its earlier verdict and changed the meaning of consultation to concurrence. Thus binding the President of India with the consultations of the Chief justice of India. 
   • This resulted in the birth of the Collegium System.
4. Third Judges Case, 1998
   • In the year 1998, the presidential reference to the Supreme court was issued questioning the meaning of the word consultation in articles 124, 217, and 222 of the Constitution.
   • The chief justice won’t be the only one as a part of the consultation process. Consultation would include a collegium of 4 senior-most judges of the Supreme court. Even if 2 of the judges are against the opinion, the CJI will not recommend it to the government.

The gist of the Third Judges case:

In the verdict, the Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and high courts which is currently known as the Collegium System.

5. Collegium System

• In this system of appointment of Judges, the collegium will recommend the names of the candidates to the Central Government.
• Also, the central government will send the names of the proposed candidates for consultation.
• The appointment process takes a long time since there isn’t a fixed time limit for it. If the Collegium resends the same name again then the government has to give its assent to the names.

The Collegium System faced a lot of criticism not only from the government but also from civil society due to its Lack of Transparency and Accountability.
This led to the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 the National Judicial Commission Act (NJAC) to replace the collegium system for the appointment of judges.

6. National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014

• The 1993 judgment was the basis on which a five-judge Constitution Bench declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (NJAC) and the Constitutional (Ninety-Nine Amendment) Act, 2014 unconstitutional in October 2015.
• NJAC too would recommend names for the  Appointment of Supreme Court Judge and Appointment and Transfer of High Court Judge 
• Composition of NJAC
  • The Chief Justice of India
  • 2 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
  • The Law Minister of India
  • 2 eminent members that are chosen by the Selection Committee

National Judicial Appointments Commission – NJAC

The aspirants should note that NJAC was established to achieve greater transparency and accountability for the appointment of judges. But it was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was against the “Independence of Judiciary” i.e Principles of Basic Structure since it involved the Political Executive in the appointment of Judges.

The current system of appointment of SC judges

• In judicial appointments, it is obligatory for the President to take into account the opinion of the CJI.
• The opinion of the CJI is binding on the Government. The opinion of the CJI must be formed after due consultation with a collegium of at least four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
• Even if two judges give an adverse opinion, then he should not send the recommendation to the Government.

Mahavir Jayanti

Context: The Vice President greets people on the eve of Mahavir Jayanti.

About Mahavir Jayanti

• Mahavir Jayanti is the most important religious holiday in Jainism.
• The holiday is celebrated on the 13th day of the waxing (rising) half of Hindu month of Chaitra which usually occurs in either late March or early April in the Gregorian calendar.
• Mahavir Jayanti celebrates the birth of Mahavira, a contemporary of the Buddha, and the 24th and last Tirthankara.
• The festival is marked with prayers and fasting.

Virafin

Context: Virafin gets emergency nod.

Details

• DBT-BIRAC supported ‘Virafin’ from Zydus Cadila gets emergency nod for treating moderate COVID-19 infections in adults.
• The restricted emergency use approval was given by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).
• Virafin is a pegylated interferon alpha-2b(PegIFN), which when subcutaneously injected to the patient in the early stages of infection, resulted in their faster recovery.
• For the development of Virafin, Zydus appreciated the support provided by DBT-BIRAC COVID 19 Research Consortium through NBM, for conducting the Phase II human clinical trial studies. 
• The studies confirmed the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Virafin. 
• The studies also reported that Virafin reduces viral load and aids in managing the disease in a better way, such as reduction in the need for supplemental oxygen, thereby reducing the respiratory tension caused due to low oxygen levels.
• Phase III clinical trial studies reported that a larger proportion of patients when administered subcutaneously with Virafin turned out to be RT-PCR negative by day 7, apart from faster recovery as compared to other antiviral agents.