The local self-government system in India has not proved to be an effective instrument of governance. Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.
The local self-government system in India has not proved to be an effective instrument of governance. Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.
Recent debates on judicial independence were reignited when the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 in 2015, reaffirming the collegium system's constitutional validity.
Constitutional Framework of NJAC Act
- Composition: Six-member commission including CJI, two senior-most SC judges, Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons
- Selection Process: Eminent persons nominated by committee of PM, CJI, and Leader of Opposition
- Legislative Support: Passed by Parliament with 99th Constitutional Amendment and ratified by over half the state legislatures
- Objective: Replace collegium system established through Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998)
- Transparency Mechanism: Written records and reasoned decisions for all appointments
Supreme Court's Rejection: Key Arguments
| Aspect | Court's Position | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Structure | NJAC violates judicial independence | Executive presence compromises autonomy |
| Separation of Powers | Maintained current balance | Prevents executive control over judiciary |
| Voting Rights | Equal votes create deadlocks | Non-judicial members could block appointments |
| Constitutional Validity | 99th Amendment unconstitutional | Alters basic structure beyond amendment power |
Critical Assessment of the Judgment
Strengths of SC Decision:
- Independence Protection: Preserved judicial autonomy from executive interference
- Constitutional Sanctity: Upheld basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Precedent Consistency: Maintained continuity with earlier collegium judgments
- Separation of Powers: Protected constitutional balance between three organs
- Institutional Integrity: Prevented potential political influence in judicial appointments
Limitations and Criticisms:
- Transparency Deficit: Justice Chelameswar's dissent highlighted collegium's opacity
- Accountability Gap: No external oversight mechanism for judicial appointments
- Reform Opportunity: Missed chance to address systemic appointment delays
- Democratic Participation: Excluded broader stakeholder involvement in selection process
- Efficiency Issues: 2014-2024 data shows persistent vacancies despite 1,038 appointments across higher judiciary
The judgment reflects tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability. While protecting constitutional principles, it necessitates collegium reforms through transparency measures like detailed resolution publication and timely appointment processes to maintain public trust in judicial institutions.
Answer Length
Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.
In just 60 sec
Evaluate your handwritten answer
- Get detailed feedback
- Model Answer after evaluation
Model Answers by Subject
Crack UPSC with your
Personal AI Mentor
An AI-powered ecosystem to learn, practice, and evaluate with discipline
