CPI(M) Concerned Over SC Judge's Remark on Central Government Interference
CPI(M) expresses concern over SC judge's remark on Central government's interference.
Photo by Wesley Tingey
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Kerala State Committee has expressed serious concern over Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's remark regarding the political executive intruding into the judiciary's independence. CPI(M) State secretary M.V. Govindan highlighted Justice Bhuyan's observation about the Central government undermining the judiciary's independence.
The judge alluded to the Supreme Court Collegium rescinding its decision to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court at the Central government's request. Mr. Govindan noted that Justice Sreedharan had previously ruled against illegal detentions by the Jammu and Kashmir administration and had taken action against a BJP minister.
Key Facts
Justice Bhuyan: Political executive intruding into judiciary
Collegium decision rescinded: Transfer of Justice Sreedharan
Justice Sreedharan: Ruled against illegal detentions in J&K
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Separation of Powers, Judiciary
Constitutional provisions related to the judiciary
Potential questions on judicial independence and executive interference
Visual Insights
Timeline of Judicial Independence Concerns in India
Key events highlighting concerns about judicial independence and executive influence in India, leading up to the recent CPI(M) statement.
The issue of judicial independence in India has been a subject of ongoing debate, with concerns raised about potential executive influence on judicial appointments and transfers. The collegium system, while intended to safeguard judicial independence, has also faced criticism regarding transparency and accountability.
- 2015Supreme Court strikes down the NJAC Act, reaffirming the collegium system.
- 2017Debate intensifies regarding transparency and accountability of the collegium system.
- 2018Government expresses concerns about judicial overreach in certain policy matters.
- 2020Several instances of delayed judicial appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
- 2022Public discourse on the separation of powers and the balance between the judiciary and the executive.
- 2024Reports of government seeking reconsideration of collegium recommendations for judicial appointments.
- 2025Supreme Court hears petitions related to judicial appointments and transfers, emphasizing the need for independence.
- 2026CPI(M) expresses concern over SC judge's remark on Central government interference in judicial transfers.
More Information
Background
The concept of judicial independence in India has deep historical roots, evolving from the colonial era to the present day. During British rule, the judiciary was often subject to executive influence. Post-independence, the Constitution of India enshrined the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as fundamental principles.
Landmark cases like the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) further solidified the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution. The establishment of the collegium system in the 1990s, through judicial pronouncements, aimed to insulate judicial appointments from executive interference. However, debates surrounding the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive have persisted, with concerns raised periodically about potential encroachment on judicial autonomy.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the debate surrounding judicial appointments and transfers has intensified. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, passed in 2014, sought to replace the collegium system, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, reaffirming the collegium's primacy. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which governs judicial appointments, has been a subject of discussion between the judiciary and the government.
Delays in judicial appointments and concerns about the transparency of the collegium system continue to be raised. The increasing number of cases related to government policies and actions has also put the judiciary under greater scrutiny, leading to heightened public and political interest in its functioning and independence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the core issue highlighted in the news regarding the CPI(M)'s concern?
The CPI(M) is concerned about a Supreme Court judge's remark on potential Central government interference in the judiciary's independence, specifically regarding the transfer of judges.
2. For UPSC Prelims, what key facts should I remember from this news?
Remember the names of key personalities like Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, M.V. Govindan, and Justice Atul Sreedharan. Also, note the context: a judge's remark on government interference and a Collegium decision being rescinded.
Exam Tip
Focus on the individuals involved and the specific incident of the judge transfer.
3. Explain the concept of judicial independence and why it's important in a democracy.
Judicial independence means the judiciary should be free from influence or control by other branches of government (executive and legislative) or private interests. It is crucial for upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and ensuring fair and impartial justice.
- •Prevents bias and ensures fair trials.
- •Upholds the Constitution and protects fundamental rights.
- •Maintains checks and balances within the government.
4. What is the Supreme Court Collegium, and what role does it play in the appointment and transfer of judges?
The Supreme Court Collegium is a body of senior judges that recommends appointments and transfers of judges in the higher judiciary. The Collegium's recommendations are usually binding on the government, though the government can raise objections, which the Collegium can then consider.
5. In the context of this news, what could be the potential implications of the Central government's interference in judicial transfers?
If the Central government interferes with judicial transfers, it could undermine the judiciary's independence, potentially leading to biased judgments and a loss of public trust in the judicial system. It raises concerns about the separation of powers.
6. How does this news relate to Article 50 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 50 directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. The news highlights concerns that the executive branch may be encroaching upon the judiciary's domain, potentially violating the spirit of Article 50.
7. What is the historical background of the debate surrounding judicial appointments and transfers in India?
The debate has roots in the colonial era, where the executive had significant influence over the judiciary. Post-independence, the Constitution aimed to establish judicial independence, but issues surrounding appointments and transfers have persisted, particularly with the introduction and subsequent striking down of the NJAC Act.
8. What reforms, if any, are needed to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the judicial appointment process?
Possible reforms could include a more detailed and publicly available rationale for Collegium decisions, a broader range of candidates considered, and a mechanism for addressing legitimate concerns about judicial conduct without undermining judicial independence.
9. Why is the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan significant in this context?
The transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan is significant because the Collegium initially decided to transfer him, but reportedly rescinded that decision at the Central government's request. This raises concerns about potential executive influence over judicial decisions, especially since Justice Sreedharan had ruled against the government in some cases.
10. How does the issue of judicial independence impact the common citizen?
Judicial independence ensures that all citizens, regardless of their background or political affiliation, have access to a fair and impartial justice system. If the judiciary is compromised, it can lead to biased decisions that negatively affect citizens' rights and liberties.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the independence of the judiciary in India: 1. The Constitution explicitly prohibits any discussion of the conduct of judges in the Parliament and State Legislatures except during impeachment proceedings. 2. The salaries and allowances of judges of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to vote in the Parliament. 3. The Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt of court, which helps in maintaining its authority and independence. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is CORRECT: Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits discussion in Parliament and Article 211 prohibits discussion in State Legislatures regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 125(1) read with Article 112(3)(d)(iii) states that the salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to vote in the Parliament. Statement 3 is CORRECT: Article 129 grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
2. In the context of judicial appointments in India, what is the 'collegium system'?
- A.A body headed by the Law Minister to recommend judicial appointments to the President.
- B.A committee of senior bureaucrats responsible for vetting judicial candidates.
- C.A system where the executive branch has the final say in judicial appointments.
- D.A system where a panel of senior judges recommends appointments and transfers of judges.
Show Answer
Answer: D
The collegium system is a system where a panel of senior judges of the Supreme Court recommends appointments and transfers of judges. The collegium is headed by the Chief Justice of India and comprises four other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This system evolved through judicial pronouncements and aims to maintain the independence of the judiciary.
3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014?
- A.It sought to replace the collegium system of judicial appointments.
- B.It included the Chief Justice of India as an ex-officio member.
- C.It was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutionally valid.
- D.It aimed to involve the executive and civil society in the judicial appointment process.
Show Answer
Answer: C
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, was NOT upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, holding it unconstitutional and reaffirming the collegium system. The Act sought to replace the collegium system and aimed to involve the executive and civil society in the judicial appointment process. It did include the Chief Justice of India as an ex-officio member.