Judiciary

UPSC GS2 — Writ Jurisdiction: Both the Supreme Court (Art 32) and High Courts (Art 226) can issue writs, but there is a key difference:

• Article 32 (SC): Writ jurisdiction only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III). Dr Ambedkar called Art 32 the "heart and soul of the Constitution" because it is itself a FR — the right to move SC for enforcement of FRs cannot be suspended except during Emergency.
• Article 226 (HC): Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of FRs AND any other legal right — including statutory rights, common law rights. HC jurisdiction is BROADER than SC's in this sense.

However, the SC is the final court of appeal, so the SC has the last word on the scope and content of the writs.

UPSC GS2 — NJAC Controversy: The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act 2014 created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the Collegium. NJAC would have comprised: CJI (Chairperson) + 2 senior-most SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons (selected by CJI, PM, and Leader of Opposition).

In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — called the Fourth Judges Case — a 5-judge bench (4:1 majority) struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, holding it violated the independence of judiciary (a Basic Structure element). The Law Minister's membership and the "eminent persons" veto created executive interference.

The controversy continues — the government argues the Collegium lacks transparency and accountability; the SC argues judicial independence is non-negotiable.

UPSC GS2 — PIL: Social Justice Tool: PIL was introduced in India in the early 1980s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (who became CJI) and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. Key features:

• Relaxed locus standi: Any public-spirited citizen (or even a letter to the court) can initiate PIL on behalf of those who cannot access courts themselves (prisoners, bonded labourers, slum dwellers)
• SC and HC can take suo motu cognizance: Courts can initiate PIL themselves based on newspaper reports, letters, etc.

Landmark PIL cases:

• MC Mehta v. Union of India (multiple cases, 1987–): Ganga pollution, Delhi vehicular pollution (CNG conversion), Agra Taj Mahal protection, closure of polluting industries in Delhi NCR
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): SC laid down Vishaka Guidelines (binding) on sexual harassment at the workplace — later codified in POSH Act 2013
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): First PIL; exposed undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar jails; SC directed speedy trials
• People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Asiad construction workers; SC expanded definition of "forced labour" under Art 23

Concerns with PIL: "Forum shopping" by vested interests; misuse to delay infrastructure projects; courts encroaching on executive/legislative domain (judicial overreach); trivial PILs wasting court time; "PIL industry."

[Additional] Basic Structure — Full Elements, Bench Details, and Post-1973 Development (GS2 — Polity):

Kesavananda Bharati — the facts:

Basic Structure elements identified across cases:

Key subsequent developments:

Why April 24, 1973 matters: This is the date of the Kesavananda judgment. Any law placed in the 9th Schedule before this date has near-complete protection from judicial review. Laws added after this date can be challenged if they violate the Basic Structure (per I.R. Coelho 2007).

UPSC synthesis: Key exam facts: Kesavananda Bharati = decided April 24, 1973 = 13-judge bench = 7:6 majority; established Basic Structure doctrine; Minerva Mills (1980) = struck down 42nd Amendment's unlimited amending power claim; I.R. Coelho (2007) = 9 judges = 9th Schedule laws after April 24, 1973 are judicially reviewable; Basic Structure has NO exhaustive list — courts add elements case by case; secularism = Basic Structure (S.R. Bommai 1994); free and fair elections = Basic Structure (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975). Prelims trap: Kesavananda bench = 13 judges (NOT 7 or 11 — the largest ever Constitution Bench); the Basic Structure doctrine was established by 7:6 majority (NOT unanimous); 9th Schedule immunity applies only to pre-1973 laws — post-Kesavananda additions are judicially reviewable (I.R. Coelho 2007); Minerva Mills is NOT the same as Kesavananda — Minerva Mills (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's claim of unlimited amending power (a different case, 7 years later).

[Additional] Gram Nyayalayas — Jurisdiction, Scope, and Governance Gap (GS2 — Governance / Access to Justice):

Jurisdiction:

Deemed status:

• For criminal cases: deemed a court of First Class Judicial Magistrate
• For civil cases: deemed a Civil Court

Appeals:

• Criminal cases → Sessions Court
• Civil cases → District Court
• NOT to the High Court directly (unlike regular Magistrates' courts which can also appeal to High Court)

Implementation reality:

Why implementation has failed:

UPSC synthesis: Key exam facts: Gram Nyayalayas Act = 2008; Ministry of Law and Justice; Nyayadhikari = equivalent to First Class Judicial Magistrate (appointed by state in consultation with HC); can try both civil and criminal matters; uses summary trial procedure; mobile court can move to the crime/dispute location; cannot try offences punishable with death or life imprisonment or more than 2 years; appeals → Sessions Court (criminal) / District Court (civil) — NOT HC directly; target = 5,000+ but only ~400 operational (2024); 253rd Law Commission Report 2015 recommended expansion. Prelims trap: Gram Nyayalayas can try both civil AND criminal cases (not only criminal — frequently stated as only criminal); appeals go to Sessions Court/District Court NOT High Court directly (an important jurisdictional point); Nyayadhikari is a judicial officer (not an elected panchayat member or non-judicial officer); Gram Nyayalayas cannot try offences punishable with death/life imprisonment.