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
The Supreme Court of India has an advisory jurisdiction under Article 143. Under this article, the President of India may, when he or she considers it necessary, refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion.

Nature and Procedure
- The reference is made by the President; individual litigants cannot seek an advisory opinion.
- The Court considers the question and gives its opinion in a form of an advisory judgment.
- The opinion is delivered after hearing such persons and on such terms as the Court thinks fit.

Legal Effect and Limits
- The advisory opinion under Article 143 is not binding on the President or on any other authority. It carries great persuasive value and helps guide the executive and legislature, but it does not have the force of a judicial order that must be implemented.
- The Supreme Court may refuse to answer questions which are vague, hypothetical, or purely political in character. It may also decline to answer questions that require the Court to adjudicate on issues already pending before it in regular proceedings.

Significance
- The advisory power helps to clarify constitutional doubts and reduces the chances of future litigation by offering authoritative legal guidance to the highest executive authority.
- It strengthens the constitutional system by assisting the executive to act within legal limits and by preventing constitutional disputes from escalating into crises.

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: 
Meaning and Scope of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of legislative enactments and administrative actions. Its purpose is to ensure that laws and executive actions conform to the Constitution and to principles such as reasonableness, fairness and natural justice.

Ensuring Fairness in Executive Action
- Judicial review checks arbitrariness by requiring that executive action be authorised by law and that the procedures followed are fair.
- Courts enforce principles such as natural justice (right to be heard, rule against bias), reasonableness and proportionality, so that individual rights are not unduly infringed by the executive.
- Judicial review also requires that discretionary powers be exercised for legitimate purposes and not for extraneous or mala fide reasons.

Key Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Facts: The passport of Maneka Gandhi was impounded under executive action without giving her a proper opportunity to be heard.
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be deprived except by a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable. The Court read Article 21 expansively and linked it with other fundamental rights so that any law or executive action restricting personal liberty must satisfy due process requirements.
- Impact: The decision expanded the scope of judicial review by insisting that not only must a law exist to justify deprivation of liberty, but the procedure prescribed by that law must be fair and non-arbitrary. This reinforced protections against unfair executive action.

Assessment
- Judicial review has been largely successful in promoting fairness by invalidating arbitrary or unreasonable executive actions and by enforcing procedural safeguards.
- Limitations remain: courts are sometimes cautious about intervening in matters involving national security, policy choices or complex administrative decisions where technical expertise is involved. However, even in such cases courts insist on minimum standards of reasonableness and procedural fairness.

Conclusion
Through decisions such as Maneka Gandhi, judicial review has proved an effective constitutional tool to ensure fairness in executive action by enforcing legal limits and procedural fairness. It acts as a corrective against arbitrary state power while respecting the separation of powers.

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: 
Grounds For Removal
- A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed from office on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Procedure for Impeachment
- Initiation: A notice of motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
- Admissibility: If the notice is admitted, the presiding officer refers it to a committee to examine the charges and evidence.
- Inquiry: An inquiry or investigation committee is constituted (usually consisting of judges and eminent persons) to probe the allegations and submit a report.
- Parliamentary Vote: If the committee finds the charges proved, the motion is taken up in the originating House. To pass, it must be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. The same procedure is repeated in the other House.
- Presidential Order: If both Houses adopt the motion, it is presented to the President, who issues an order for removal.

Who May Be Removed
- The procedure applies to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts; the exact constitutional provisions differ (e.g., Articles 124(4)-(5) for Supreme Court judges), but the parliamentary process is common in spirit.

Historical Outcome
- Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against a few judges in India's history. However, no judge of the Supreme Court has been successfully removed by way of impeachment. In practice, impeachment proceedings are rare and difficult to complete because of the high thresholds of proof and parliamentary majority required. In some past instances, proceedings were not concluded or judges resigned before completion of the process.

Conclusion
- Yes, impeachment proceedings can be initiated against a sitting judge on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, following a detailed parliamentary inquiry and special voting requirements. Though available as a constitutional remedy, successful removal through impeachment has not occurred in the Supreme Court and is uncommon in the judiciary as a whole.

Q4. What are Tribunals? How do they play an instrumental role in rendering more effective dispute resolution mechanism? 
Ans: 
Definition and Nature
- Tribunals are specialised quasi-judicial bodies set up to adjudicate particular types of disputes - for example, service matters, taxation, environmental cases or telecom disputes. They combine legal and technical expertise to decide cases within a limited subject-matter jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Legal Basis
- Tribunals for administrative matters were given constitutional recognition by the 42nd Amendment. Articles 323A and 323B provide for administrative and other tribunals. Statutes such as the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 set up bodies like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Advantages
- Speed: Tribunals are intended to provide faster disposal of disputes compared to ordinary courts.
- Expertise: Members often include specialists who understand sectoral or technical issues, producing more informed decisions.
- Relief to Courts: By handling specialised matters, tribunals reduce the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court, helping to cut backlog.
- Access and Cost: Tribunals are usually designed to be less formal and less expensive than regular courts, making justice more accessible.

Limitations and Judicial Oversight
- Tribunals must act within legal limits; their decisions are subject to judicial review. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals to ensure legality and constitutional conformity.
- Over time, concerns about independence, appointment procedures and judicial control have led to debates on tribunal design and safeguards.

Examples
- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government service disputes.
- National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental matters.
- Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for telecom sector disputes.

Conclusion
- Tribunals play an instrumental role in making dispute resolution more effective by providing specialised, quicker and cost-effective forums for adjudication, while remaining subject to judicial supervision to protect legal and constitutional standards.

Q5. Elucidate on the current practice for the appoint of members of Higher Judiciary in India. 
Ans: Constitutional Framework
The Constitution sets out qualifications and formal procedures for appointment of judges: Articles relate to appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges and Persons eligible include judicial officers and experienced advocates.

Appointment of District Judges
- District judges are appointed by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court. Eligible persons are members of the State judicial service or advocates with a specified period of practice.

Appointment of High Court Judges
- High Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Qualifications include a specified period of judicial office or practice as an advocate.

Collegium System (Current Practice)
- Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts are now made through the collegium system, a practice developed by Supreme Court judgments (the Three Judges Cases). The collegium emphasises judicial primacy in appointments to safeguard independence.
- For the Supreme Court, the collegium ordinarily comprises the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Supreme Court judges who recommend candidates to the executive.
- For High Courts, the local collegium typically includes the Chief Justice of the High Court and two senior-most judges, with consultation by the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges when recommendations are sent to the Union Government.

Attempts at Reform
- There have been efforts to change the system, most notably the proposal for the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Parliament enacted the NJAC in 2014, but the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015 in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, holding that the NJAC unduly compromised judicial independence. As a result, the collegium system continues to operate, though calls for greater transparency and clearer criteria remain.

Criticisms and Safeguards
- Critics point to perceived opacity and lack of objective criteria in the collegium process. Supporters argue it protects judicial independence from political influence. Recent judicial and administrative efforts have sought to introduce greater transparency without altering the basic collegium framework.

Conclusion
- The current practice for appointing higher judiciary members in India centres on the collegium system, grounded in judicial precedents, operating alongside constitutional provisions and subject to continuing debate about transparency and reform.

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: Appointed by the President under Article 76, the Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the Union Government and represents the Union in the Supreme Court and other courts when required.
• Advocate General of a State: Appointed by the Governor under Article 165, the Advocate General is the principal legal adviser to the State Government and represents the State in legal matters before courts.