CBSE Textbook Solutions: Judiciary | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

Q1. Besides being an adjudicator and an interpreter, the Supreme Court performs another function under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Identify and explain this function of the Supreme Court of India. 
Ans: 
​Function of the Supreme Court under Article 143
Besides being an adjudicator and an interpreter, the Supreme Court of India performs the function of providing advisory opinions to the President of India under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. This advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on any question of law or fact that is of public importance.
Explanation of the Function
The advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court is not binding on the President or any other authority, meaning it does not have the force of law. However, it serves as a significant tool for guiding the government on complex legal issues. The Supreme Court can refuse to give an opinion if the questions posed are vague or political in nature.
Significance
This function underscores the role of the Supreme Court as a stabilizing force in the constitutional framework, helping to clarify legal ambiguities and providing a check on executive power. It ensures that the government operates within the bounds of the law, thereby protecting the rights and interests of citizens.

Q2. The power of Judicial Review is available to the Supreme Court and High Courts of States in the matters of both administrative and legislative actions. How far has the Judicial Review principle been successful in ensuring the fairness in executive actions? Discuss by referring to a decided case law. 
Ans: The power of Judicial Review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution, enabling the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine both legislative and administrative actions. This mechanism plays a crucial role in upholding fairness in executive actions, ensuring that they adhere to principles such as natural justice, reasonableness, and proportionality.
Key Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
One landmark case that exemplifies the effectiveness of Judicial Review in promoting fairness is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed without following the principles of natural justice.
Case Background
Maneka Gandhi was detained under the Passport Act without being provided an opportunity to be heard. She challenged this detention, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that any law that restricts personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The Court emphasized that the procedure established by law must also be fair and not arbitrary, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of proportionality.
Impact of the Decision
This ruling significantly expanded the scope of Judicial Review in India. It established that executive actions must not only comply with the law but also adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and justly by the state.
Conclusion
The principle of Judicial Review has been instrumental in safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary executive actions. Through cases like Maneka Gandhi, the judiciary has demonstrated its role as a guardian of constitutional values, ensuring that fairness prevails in the exercise of executive power.

Q3. Can 'Impeachment' proceedings be initiated against this sitting judge? If yes, Explain the grounds and procedure for 'Impeachment'. How many times has this process been successful in the history of Indian Judiciary? 
Ans: Yes, impeachment proceedings can be initiated against a sitting judge in India.
Grounds for Impeachment
Judges can be removed on the following grounds:

• Incapacity
• Proven misbehaviour

Procedure for Impeachment

• Notice of Motion: A minimum of 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha must give a signed notice for removal.
• Inquiry Committee: If notices are admitted in both Houses, an Inquiry Committee is formed to investigate the allegations.
• Submission of Inquiry Report: The Inquiry Committee submits its findings. If misbehaviour or incapacity is found, a motion for removal is put to vote.
• Voting: The motion must be adopted by a majority of the total membership and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses.
• Order by the President: If the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who issues an order for the removal of the judge.

History of Impeachment Proceedings
Impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court or High Court judges have been initiated a total of 5 times in Indian history:

• V. Ramaswami J (1993) - Motion failed to secure the required majority.
• Soumitra Sen J (2011) - Resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion.
• J.B. Pardiwala J (2015) - Impeachment notice moved but not successful.
• C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy J (2017) - Motion initiated but not concluded.
• P.D. Dinakaran J (2011) - Resigned before proceedings could be initiated.

Conclusion
Impeachment is a constitutional process that allows for the removal of judges under specific grounds and procedures, though it has seen limited success in practice.

Q4. What are Tribunals? How do they play an instrumental role in rendering more effective dispute resolution mechanism? 
Ans: Tribunals are semi-judicial bodies involved in dispute resolution. They function as quasi-judicial entities, consisting of administrative officers or judges who may not have a traditional legal background. Despite this, they operate in a judicial capacity, hearing relevant legal matters and settling claims between parties. Tribunals complement and supplement the role of courts in maintaining law and justice in society.
Historical Context
Tribunals were not part of the original Indian Constitution but were incorporated by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976. Article 323-A addresses Administrative Tribunals, while Article 323-B pertains to tribunals for other matters. This amendment marked the beginning of the 'tribunalisation of the Indian judiciary'. The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 further established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), allowing aggrieved persons to approach these tribunals directly.
Objectives and Functions
The primary objective of tribunals is to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to litigants. Given that the government is a significant litigant in courts, the establishment of tribunals has helped reduce delays and the backlog of cases, particularly in service disputes. However, it is important to note that tribunals do not replace courts; as clarified by the Supreme Court in the L Chandra Kumar case, tribunals do not have exclusive jurisdiction, and their decisions can be reviewed by the High Courts.
Constitutional Mandate
Tribunals are established under specific constitutional provisions or through legal enactments. Their creation aims to enhance efficiency in dispute resolution and alleviate the burden on traditional courts. Examples of tribunals include:

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Resolves grievances of central government employees.
• State Administrative Tribunals (SAT): Addresses disputes involving state government employees.
• Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT): Handles disputes in the telecom sector.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Deals with environmental disputes.

Collaboration with Regulators
Some tribunals operate alongside specialized government agencies known as regulators. For instance, TDSAT collaborates with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to formulate laws and policies for resolving telecom disputes.
Conclusion
In summary, tribunals play an instrumental role in enhancing the effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms in India by providing specialized, efficient, and accessible forums for adjudication, thereby supporting the judicial system without replacing it.

Q5. Elucidate on the current practice for the appoint of members of Higher Judiciary in India. 
Ans: Constitutional Framework
The appointment of judges in India is governed by the Constitution, specifically Articles 233 and 217 for district and High Court judges, respectively.
Appointment of District Judges
According to Article 233, the Governor of the State, in consultation with the High Court, appoints district judges. The qualifications include:

• Member of the judicial service of the State, or
• A person with a minimum of seven years of practice as a lawyer at the bar.

Appointment of High Court Judges
Article 217 outlines that High Court judges are appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Qualifications include:

• Citizenship of India, and
• At least ten years of holding a judicial office or being an advocate in a High Court or two or more such courts in succession.

Collegium System
The current practice for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts follows a collegium system, which is not constitutionally mandated but has evolved through judicial interpretations.

• Supreme Court Judges: The Chief Justice of India consults the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. Recommendations are sent to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, who presents them to the Prime Minister, who then advises the President.
• High Court Judges: The collegium for High Courts consists of the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges. Recommendations are conveyed to the Chief Minister and Governor, who send their views to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The Chief Justice of India, in consultation with two Supreme Court judges, finalizes the recommendations.

Historical Context
The appointment process has been contentious, with tensions between the executive and judiciary. The 14th Law Commission Report highlighted issues of political influence in appointments. The Three Judges Cases established the collegium system to enhance judicial independence.
Conclusion
The appointment of judges in India is a complex process influenced by constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and historical context, aiming to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

Q6. List any 2 constitutional offices endowed with the function to advice and represent the government on legal matters.
Ans: Constitutional Offices with Legal Advisory Functions

• Attorney General of India: The first legal officer of the country, appointed by the President under Article 76 of the Constitution. The Attorney General advises the government on legal matters and represents it in court.
• Advocate General: The chief legal advisor to the State Government, appointed by the Governor under Article 165 of the Constitution. The Advocate General represents the state in legal matters and provides legal advice to the government.