APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha

DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India

1. Evaluate the Supreme Court’s judgement on National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 with
reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Syllabus Paper II: Section A: Judiciary in India — Structure and functions
Deviation of your Answer Demand of the Question
▪ Answering only about features of NJAC ▪ Findings of SC in NJAC, appointment procedure of
judges in India
Introduction:
▪ In 2014, the Parliament passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act to introduce a more
transparent system in judicial appointments. However, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in 2015,
struck down the NJAC Act, upholding the primacy of the collegium system. This ruling has far-reaching
implications for the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional framework governing judicial
appointments.
Main Dimensions:
Collegium system:
▪ The Judges of higher judiciary in India are appointed by President based on the recommendations of a Collegium
system comprising four senior most judges of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice of India.
▪ The Collegium system is criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability due to opaque decision-making
processes, leading to concerns regarding favouritism and arbitrary judicial appointments.
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (NJAC Act):
▪ The NJAC Act aimed to replace the Collegium system with a commission featuring members from the judiciary
and executive.
▪ It intended to enhance democracy and inclusivity in judge appointments through a diverse composition,
including judges, government officials, and eminent citizens.
Arguments for the NJAC Act:
▪ Lack of Transparency: The lack of transparency in the collegium system has led to controversies over subjective
selection criteria and allegations of favoritism in judicial appointments. Reports and studies highlight public
concerns, indicating a need for reforms to ensure fairness and accountability in the process.
▪ Curbing Executive Overreach: The Act aims to curtail executive influence in judicial appointments, countering
allegations of political interference under the collegium system. Past instances of such interference have raised
concerns about the impartiality of judicial appointments. Legal documents and cases point to attempts by the
executive to influence appointments, undermining judicial independence.
Reasons for Striking Down the NJAC Act by Supreme Court:
▪ Violation of Separation of Powers: The Act’s inclusion of the executive in judicial appointments undermined
the principle of separation of powers, potentially compromising judicial independence which is against Article
50.
▪ Lack of Safeguards for Judicial Independence: The Act’s power for the commission to reject names
recommended by the collegium could have been misused to influence judicial decisions.
Looking ahead:
▪ In order to address the transparency issues in collegium system and to ensure Independence of judiciary, several
commissions recommended for various bodies.
▪ Second Administrative Reforms commission in 2007 recommended for composition comprising members from
Legislature, executive and Judiciary.
▪ National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in 2002 recommended for the
composition of CJI, 2 senior most judges of Supreme Court, Law minister and one eminent person.

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 1

APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha
DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India
▪ Law Commission in 1987 recommended for the composition consists of members from Judiciary and Executive
and one law academic.
Conclusion:
▪ The Supreme Court’s judgement on the NJAC Act has been a contentious issue. While upholding judicial
independence, it left the collegium system unaddressed. A balanced approach is needed, ensuring judicial
primacy in appointments while incorporating elements of transparency and accountability.
In News SC Bench strikes down NJAC Act as ‘unconstitutional and void’
2. Discuss the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy in India.
Syllabus Paper II: Section A: Judiciary in India- Judicial review
Deviation of your Answer Demand of the Question
▪ Focussing only on the concept of judicial review ▪ Assess how judicial activism contributes to
without properly examining it. democratic ideals in India, emphasizing its role in
safeguarding rights, ensuring checks and balances,
and promoting accountability.
Introduction:
▪ India's democracy thrives on a dynamic interplay between institutions of Legislature, executive and Judiciary.
Judicial activism denotes the proactive role played by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and
in the promotion of justice in the society. It plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of democracy by
ensuring accountability, safeguarding rights, and promoting equality in India.
Dimensions:
Role of Judicial Activism in achieving the ideals of democracy:
▪ Upholding Constitutional Values: The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that legislative
and executive actions comply with constitutional norms. For instance, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
(1973), the Supreme Court asserted the supremacy of the Constitution and established the doctrine of basic
structure, safeguarding essential democratic principles from arbitrary amendments.
• The Indian Constitution, through Articles 32 and 226, empowers the judiciary to enforce the rights of
individuals and uphold the constitutional mandate.
▪ Ensuring Accountability: Judicial intervention promotes accountability among government bodies and officials.
Through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and judicial reviews, the judiciary holds the government accountable
for its actions and policies.
• In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court's intervention in the "Hawala case" led to
investigations into corruption allegations against high-ranking politicians, enhancing accountability in
governance.
▪ Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: The judiciary acts as a protector of individual liberties and ensures that
citizens' rights are not infringed upon by the state or other entities.
• In the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the
scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), emphasizing the need for fair procedure and due
process in administrative actions, thereby safeguarding citizens' rights.
▪ Promoting Social Justice and Equality: Through progressive interpretations of laws and proactive interventions,
the judiciary works towards creating a more equitable society.
• In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex
relations, affirming the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and promoting inclusivity and equality before the law.
▪ Balancing Powers: The judiciary prevents the concentration of power in any single institution and maintains the
separation of powers essential for democratic governance.

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 2

APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha
DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India
• In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court upheld the principles of federalism and
parliamentary democracy, asserting the judiciary's role in preventing executive overreach and preserving
democratic principles.
Violation of Principal of separation of powers:
▪ Overreach and Judicial Legislating: Judicial activism sometimes leads to accusations of overreach, where the
judiciary encroaches upon the domain of the legislature or executive, effectively legislating from the bench.
Critics argue that judges, unelected and unaccountable, should not make policy decisions better suited for
elected representatives.
▪ Undermining Democratic process: When judges overturn or significantly alter laws, it can be seen as
undermining the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
Looking Ahead:
▪ While judicial activism has been instrumental in strengthening democracy, it is imperative to balance it with
judicial restraint to maintain the separation of powers. The judiciary’s self-imposed restraint ensures that it does
not overstep its boundaries and respects the roles of the other branches of government.
▪ Supreme Court in 2007 called for judicial restraint and asked courts not to take over the functions of the
legislature or the executive.
Conclusion
▪ Judicial activism has been a double-edged sword in India's democratic journey. It has fostered social justice,
upheld the rule of law, and ensured accountability. However, concerns regarding judicial overreach and
subjective interpretations necessitate a balanced approach. Open dialogue and evolving jurisprudence can
ensure that judicial activism continues to serve the ideals of a vibrant and inclusive Indian democracy.
Respecting judicial restraint and fostering dialogue between branches are crucial for a robust democracy where
the judiciary safeguards rights without overstepping its legislative bounds.
In News Unwarranted judicial activism should be avoided by courts: Supreme Court
3. High Courts in India has greater writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court. Comment
Syllabus Paper III: Section A: Judiciary in India — Structure and functions
Deviation of your Answer Demand of the Question
▪ Writing only about writ jurisdiction of High Court and ▪ Focus on writ jurisdictions of high court and
Supreme Court supreme court and write about the comparison of
their writ jurisdictions
Introduction:
▪ The Indian Constitution empowers both the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs, which are powerful
tools for ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law. The jurisdiction of high courts in issuing writs under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is broader in certain aspects compared to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
under Article 32.
Main Dimensions:
Purpose of Issuing Writs:
▪ High Court: High courts can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any
other purpose, including the enforcement of ordinary legal rights. This means that high courts have the authority
to issue writs in a wider range of cases beyond just the protection of fundamental rights.
• A high court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duties, even
if those duties do not directly relate to fundamental rights.

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 3

APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha
DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India
▪ Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, on the other hand, can issue writs exclusively for the enforcement of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Its jurisdiction is limited to matters concerning
fundamental rights, making it narrower in scope compared to high courts.
• The Supreme Court can issue a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of a person detained in violation
of their fundamental right to liberty.
Territorial Jurisdiction:
▪ High Court: A high court can issue writs against a person residing within its territorial jurisdiction or against a
government or authority located within its territorial boundaries. It can also issue writs outside its territorial
jurisdiction if the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
• The Calcutta High Court can issue a writ against a person or government within the state of West Bengal, or
even against entities outside West Bengal if the cause of action arises within the state.
▪ Supreme Court: The Supreme Court can issue writs against any person or government throughout the territory
of India. Its jurisdiction extends across the entire nation, making it broader in terms of territorial reach compared
to high courts.
• The Supreme Court can issue a writ against a state government or authority located in one state, even if the
petitioner resides in another state.
Discretionary Nature of Writ Jurisdiction:
▪ High Court: The power to issue writs under Article 226 is discretionary for high courts. This means that a high
court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction based on its discretion, even if the conditions for issuing a writ
are met.
• A high court may refuse to issue a writ if it finds that there are alternative remedies available to the
petitioner.
▪ Supreme Court: In contrast, the Supreme Court is mandated to enforce fundamental rights through the issuance
of writs under Article 32. A remedy under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, and hence the Supreme Court
cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction in matters concerning fundamental rights.
• The Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear a petition filed under Article 32 alleging a violation of a
fundamental right.
Conclusion:
▪ The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, High Courts offer a broader range of
intervention possibilities within their territorial boundaries. This intricate framework ensures a comprehensive
and accessible system for protecting individual rights and enforcing the law.
In News Writ can be filed against KITCO, says High Court
4. Discuss the role of public interest litigation in ensuring social justice and upholding constitutional values.
Syllabus Paper III: Section A: Public Interest Litigation
Deviation of your Answer Demand of the Question
▪ Writing only about the concept of Public Interest ▪ Discussing the role of PIL in ensuring social justice
Litigation without answering its role in ensuring social and upholding constitutional values
justice
Introduction:
▪ Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plays a crucial role in ensuring social justice and upholding constitutional values
in India. It emerged as a product of judicial activism, primarily led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N.
Bhagwati in the early 1980s.
Main Dimensions:
Role of public interest litigation in ensuring social justice and upholding constitutional values:

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 4

APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha
DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India
Accessibility to Justice:
▪ PIL aims to make justice accessible to marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society, who often lack the
resources to engage in traditional litigation. By allowing any interested person to bring forth matters of public
interest, PIL broadens the scope of legal representation beyond individual disputes.
Vindication of Public Interest:
▪ Unlike traditional litigation, where the focus is on resolving disputes between parties, PIL is intended to promote
and vindicate public interest. It addresses issues affecting large segments of society, such as environmental
degradation, bonded labour, and atrocities against marginalized communities.
Protection of Rights:
▪ PIL seeks to protect constitutional and legal rights, particularly of those who are poor, ignorant, or socially and
economically disadvantaged. It ensures that violations of these rights do not go unnoticed or unaddressed,
thereby promoting social justice and equality before the law.
Assertive Judicial Role:
▪ In PIL, the judiciary plays a more assertive and proactive role compared to traditional litigation. It creatively
interprets laws and takes affirmative action to address public grievances and uphold constitutional values.
Flexibility and Innovation:
▪ While adhering to procedural laws, PIL allows for flexibility and innovation in addressing complex social issues.
It enables the court to relax procedural requirements and adopt a more pragmatic approach to delivering
justice.
Guidelines for Entertaining PILs:
▪ The Supreme Court has established guidelines for entertaining PILs, ensuring that only matters of significant
public interest are considered. These guidelines help maintain the integrity and effectiveness of PIL as a tool for
social justice.
Limitations:
Governmental Immunity:
▪ PIL cannot be used to directly challenge the actions of government departments or local bodies unless they fall
within specific categories outlined by the Supreme Court guidelines. This limitation restricts the scope of PIL in
holding government authorities accountable.
Private Disputes:
▪ Disputes between private parties, even if they have implications for public interest, are generally not
entertained as PIL. PIL is primarily focused on addressing systemic issues and violations of constitutional rights
rather than individual grievances.
Judicial Review Limits:
▪ PIL should not extend beyond the boundaries of known areas of judicial review. While the judiciary plays an
assertive role in PIL cases, it must operate within the confines of legal principles and constitutional provisions.
Conclusion:
▪ Despite limitations, PIL remains a vital instrument for social change in India. As long as it is employed
strategically and thoughtfully, PIL can continue to be a beacon of hope for those seeking justice and a stronger,
more equitable society.
In News Supreme Court agrees to list PIL against practice of parties promising freebies during polls
5. How far Supreme Court has effectively played its role in safeguarding the Constitution with respect to various
constitutional amendments in India?
Syllabus Paper III: Section A: Important provisions relating to emergency and constitutional
amendments

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 5

APPSC | Group-I | Mains-2024 | AG1DMT- 3105 | Model Answers | Naipunyatha
DAY -24 |Paper –III| Section-A | Judiciary in India
Deviation of your Answer Demand of the Question
▪ Writing only about various Constitutional ▪ Write about the role of Supreme Court in
amendments safeguarding the constitution during amendments
Introduction:
▪ The Supreme Court's role in safeguarding the Constitution during amendments has been crucial in preserving
constitutional integrity. Historically, the Court has faced challenges and conflicts, particularly during periods of
political turbulence such as the 1967-1977 phase and the Emergency period. However, its assertiveness and
interventions have significantly contributed to upholding the principles of the Constitution.
Main Dimensions:
Establishing Judicial Review: Golak Nath Case (1967)
▪ During the Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ruling that Parliament
cannot take away or abridge fundamental rights through constitutional amendments. This landmark decision
was instrumental in safeguarding the core principles of the Constitution, ensuring that fundamental rights
remain inviolable even in the face of legislative actions.
Doctrine of Basic Structure: Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
▪ In the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of basic
structure, asserting that even constitutional amendments could be struck down if they violated the essential
features of the Constitution. This decision exemplifies the Court's effectiveness in preventing amendments that
threaten the core principles of democracy, secularism, federalism, and free elections.
Upholding Constitutional Integrity: Minerva Mills Case (1980)
▪ Despite challenges during the Emergency period, where the judiciary's authority was undermined, the Supreme
Court eventually asserted its independence through decisions like in the Minerva Mills case. The subsequent
passage of the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act reinstated the judiciary's position, reaffirming its role as a
guardian of the Constitution.
Reaffirming the Rule of Law: I.R. Coelho Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
▪ Similarly, in I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reaffirmed the significance of the Rule of Law as a
basic structure of the Constitution, thereby preventing its abolition through constitutional amendments. This
underscores the Court's role in preserving foundational principles such as equality before the law and the
authority of law over arbitrary administrative actions.
Protecting the Independence of Judiciary: National Judicial Appointment Commission Act
▪ Parliament passed the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 along with the NJAC Act, 2014, providing for
the creation of an independent commission to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and high courts to replace
the collegium system. The Supreme Court had struck down the NJAC Act holding it unconstitutional.
Vigilance Against Executive Overreach: Nandini Sundar Case (2011)
▪ Furthermore, in the case of Nandini Sundar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court upheld the Rule of
Law by scrutinizing executive actions that violated fundamental rights and democratic principles. This judgment
demonstrates the Court's vigilance in checking governmental excesses and ensuring adherence to constitutional
norms.
Conclusion:
▪ The above cases showcase the Supreme Court's consistent efforts in safeguarding the Constitution, establishing
judicial review, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law, thereby preserving the integrity
of India's constitutional framework.
In News NJAC never given chance to work, led to friction in functioning of collegium: Justice S K Kaul

Every Question is framed based on the Reverse Engineering Technique | www.civiccentre.in 6