NCERT
Every NCERT book that matters for UPSC — open a book, then a chapter. Learn each chapter's concepts, then how UPSC tests them — with diagrams, flowcharts and the past questions to attempt.
0% read
← Indian Constitution at Work — all chaptersJudiciary
Start here: why this chapter matters
In simple wordsA football match needs a referee whom neither team pays, neither captain can sack, and whose whistle both obey. Courts are democracy's referee — and this chapter is about how that referee is chosen, protected and kept in check.
Chapter 2 showed courts enforcing rights through writs; Chapters 4 and 5 showed the executive and legislature. This chapter completes the triangle: the courts' independence, structure and powers, their activism, and their long tussle with Parliament.
- Builds on Chapter 2 (writs, Article 21, Kesavananda and property) and Chapter 5 (removal of judges by special majority; privileges).
- Leads to Chapter 7 (Supreme Court as federal umpire), Chapter 9 (basic structure and amendments) and Chapter 10 (the Constitution as a living, interpreted document).
- UPSC: GS2 ‘structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary’, ‘separation of powers’, ‘dispute redressal mechanisms’ — heavily tested on appointments, jurisdictions, PIL and legal aid.
| Word | What it means here |
|---|---|
| Rule of law | Everyone, rich or poor, is subject to the same law |
| Independence of judiciary | Courts decide without interference, restraint, fear or favour |
| Collegium | The CJI and senior-most judges who recommend appointments |
| Contempt of court | Disobeying or scandalising a court; courts can punish it |
| Integrated judiciary | One hierarchy of courts for the whole country |
| Original jurisdiction | Cases a court hears first, not on appeal |
| Appellate jurisdiction | Power to hear appeals from lower courts |
| Advisory jurisdiction | Giving an opinion when the President asks |
| Judicial review | Power to strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution |
| Judicial activism | Courts taking a proactive role, often through PIL |
| PIL | Public interest litigation — a case filed for others or for the public |
| Basic structure | Core features that even an amendment cannot destroy |
Reading the chapter opening (page 124)No picture — courts as more than arbiters of private disputes; the Supreme Court as one of the world's most powerful courts; four aims: independence, protecting rights, interpreting the Constitution, and the relationship with Parliament.
At a glance — the six ideas to carry away
- Judiciary protects the rule of law; independence = no interference, no restraint, no fear or favour — but still accountable.
- Safeguards: no legislature in appointments, security of tenure, removal only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity by special majority in both Houses, salaries not voted, contempt power.
- Appointment: President ‘consults’ CJI → judgments 1982–98 → collegium (CJI + four senior-most judges). CJI convention broken in 1973 and with M.H. Beg.
- Single integrated pyramid: Supreme Court → High Courts → District → subordinate courts.
- Supreme Court jurisdiction: original (Union–State), writ, appellate, advisory (President may refer; neither side bound), special leave; Arts 137 (review), 144.
- PIL since 1979 (Hussainara Khatoon; Sunil Batra 1980); judicial review; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — basic structure.
1. Why an independent judiciary, and how it is protected
In simple wordsAn umpire whose salary depends on one team's goodwill will soon start favouring that team. Judges' pay, jobs and appointments are therefore placed beyond the easy reach of politicians.
Disputes arise between individuals, groups and governments; they must be settled by an independent body under the rule of law — the same law for rich and poor, men and women, forward and backward castes. The judiciary protects the rule of law and supremacy of law, safeguards rights, settles disputes and ensures democracy does not become individual or group dictatorship. That needs independence from political pressure.
Independence means the executive and legislature must not restrain the judiciary so it cannot do justice, must not interfere with its decisions, and judges must act without fear or favour. It does not mean arbitrariness or lack of accountability: the judiciary answers to the Constitution, democratic traditions and the people.
Reading R.K. Laxman's cartoon on page 125In a courtroom marked ‘Court’, a lawyer sprawls on the floor among scattered law books after a scuffle, while a towering, furious man in a coat looks down; someone recites a tangle of section numbers at him. NCERT's caption: ‘No fisticuffs please, this is rule of law!’ The point: disputes are settled by argument under law in a neutral forum, not by force.
- Appointment: the legislature is not involved, so party politics should not decide appointments; legal experience is required, not political loyalty.
- Tenure: judges hold office till retirement; removal only in exceptional cases through a very difficult procedure.
- Finance: salaries and allowances are not subject to the legislature's approval.
- Immunity: judges' actions and decisions are protected from personal criticism; courts can punish contempt; Parliament cannot discuss a judge's conduct except during removal proceedings.
Reading the side cartoons and the Activity (pages 126–127)
- A girl recalls Machal Lalung (Chapter 2): ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ — someone should do something. Delays are the judiciary's biggest weakness (Beyond NCERT: crores of pending cases).
- The Activity asks which factors constrain judges — the Constitution, precedents, other courts' opinions, public opinion, media, legal traditions, laws, time and staff, fear of criticism or of executive action — and whether these are justified. Constitution, laws and precedent are legitimate constraints; fear of the executive or of criticism should not be.
- A puzzled boy asks why we may criticise the PM or President but not judges, and whether asking this is itself contempt. No: fair criticism of judgments is allowed; contempt is disobeying orders or scandalising the court to lower its authority (Beyond NCERT: truth is a defence under the Contempt of Courts Act).
Beyond NCERT — the Articles behind independence
- Article 124: Supreme Court; judges appointed by the President; removal under 124(4). The number of judges is fixed by Parliament (UPSC 2014) — 34 including the CJI since a 2019 Act.
- Salaries of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India; of High Court judges on the Consolidated Fund of the State (UPSC 2002, 2012). Salaries cannot be cut to their disadvantage except in a financial emergency.
- Articles 129 and 215: the Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record with power to punish contempt; the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 followed the H.N. Sanyal Committee; the Constitution itself does not define civil and criminal contempt (UPSC 1997, 2022).
- Article 121: no discussion in Parliament of a judge's conduct except on a removal motion. Article 50 (a Directive Principle) directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services (UPSC 2020).
- Retirement: Supreme Court 65, High Courts 62. A retired High Court judge may practise only before the Supreme Court and other High Courts (Article 220; UPSC 1985). A retired Supreme Court judge may be asked by the CJI, with the President's consent, to sit again (Article 128; UPSC 2021).
2. Appointment and removal of judges
In simple wordsWho picks the referees? If the government alone chooses, it may choose friendly ones; if the referees alone choose, they may choose their own circle. India has swung between these two worries.
Appointments have never been free of controversy: who sits on the bench changes how the Constitution is interpreted — whether judges favour an assertive or a ‘committed’ judiciary. The Council of Ministers, Governors, Chief Ministers and the CJI all influence appointments.
Chief Justice of India: by convention the senior-most Supreme Court judge. The convention was broken twice: in 1973 A.N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges, and later M.H. Beg superseding H.R. Khanna. Other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President after ‘consulting’ the CJI — which once meant the Council of Ministers decided. Between 1982 and 1998 the Supreme Court repeatedly considered the matter: first that consultation was merely consultative, then that the CJI's opinion must be followed, and finally that the CJI should recommend names in consultation with the four senior-most judges — the principle of collegiality. Today the senior judges' collective decision carries greater weight.
NCERT slip and exam points
- NCERT dates M.H. Beg's supersession of H.R. Khanna to 1975; Beg became CJI in January 1977 (Khanna resigned in protest). Use 1977.
- The Constitution says the President appoints after consultation with the CJI (and, for High Courts, the Governor and the High Court Chief Justice — Article 217) — not ‘consent’ (UPSC 1987 used ‘consent’ in its keyed option; for that question keep the key). The President, not the Prime Minister, appoints (UPSC 1991).
- Beyond NCERT: the three Judges cases — S.P. Gupta (1981), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993) and the Third Judges case (1998, a Presidential reference) — created the collegium. The 99th Amendment (2014) set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission (Article 124A), which the Supreme Court struck down in October 2015 as violating judicial independence (UPSC 2019; Mains 2017, 2025). An earlier 98th Amendment Bill (2003) had also proposed a National Judicial Commission (UPSC 2005).
⤵ How a Supreme Court judge is appointed today (collegium — Beyond NCERT detail)
Vacancya judge retires or a post is created by Parliament
Collegium recommendsthe CJI and four senior-most judges choose a name
Government's viewthe Law Ministry may return the name once for reconsideration
Collegium reiteratesthe recommendation is ordinarily binding
Collegium drops the namea new name is considered
President appointsby warrant; the judge takes the oath
Reading the side cartoon on page 128A boy wonders whether the Council of Ministers finally has the greater say, or whether the judiciary has become a self-appointing body. After the collegium judgments, the second — which is exactly why the NJAC was attempted and why the debate continues.
Removal is extremely difficult: a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed only for proven misbehaviour or incapacity, by a motion approved by a special majority in both Houses. So removal needs broad consensus. The executive has a crucial role in appointment, the legislature in removal — a balance that protects independence. Only one case of removing a Supreme Court judge has come before Parliament; the motion won two-thirds of those voting but not a majority of the total strength, so the judge stayed.
⤵ Removal of a judge (Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act — detail Beyond NCERT)
Motion signed by MPsat least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members
Speaker or Chairman admits itor may refuse it (UPSC 2019)
Three-member inquiry committeea Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist
If found guilty: each House votesa majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting
President orders removalin the same session
Reading the box ‘Unsuccessful Attempt to Remove a Judge’ and ‘Check your progress’ (page 129)
- In 1991, 108 MPs signed the first-ever motion to remove a Supreme Court judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, accused of misusing funds as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In 1992 an inquiry committee of judges found him guilty of wilful and gross misuse of office. But in Parliament the motion got two-thirds of those present and voting while the Congress abstained, so it lacked a majority of total strength and failed. The point: the special majority protects judges — even, sometimes, guilty ones.
- Check your progress: why independence matters; whether the executive should appoint judges; how you would change the procedure. Answered in the in-text section.
Beyond NCERT — removal facts
- The Ramaswami motion was defeated in the Lok Sabha in 1993. In 2011 the Rajya Sabha voted to remove Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, who resigned before the Lok Sabha voted. High Court judges are removed in the same way as Supreme Court judges (UPSC 2007).
- The Constitution does not define ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’ (UPSC 2019).
3. Structure of the judiciary and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
In simple wordsThink of a school: class teacher, then headmaster, then the board. A complaint goes up step by step, and the board's ruling binds every school. India's courts work the same way, with one system for the whole country.
India has a single integrated judicial system — no separate State courts as in some federations. It is a pyramid: the Supreme Court, then High Courts, then district and subordinate courts, each under the superintendence of the court above.
Reading the chart ‘Structure of the Judiciary’ (page 130)Four stacked boxes linked by arrows: Supreme Court (decisions bind all courts; can transfer High Court judges; can move cases from any court to itself and between High Courts); High Court (appeals, writs, State cases, superintendence of lower courts); District Court (district cases, appeals, serious crimes); Subordinate Courts (civil and criminal cases). Side arrows show each higher court reaching all levels below. Note: High Court judges are transferred by the President after consulting the CJI (Article 222, Beyond NCERT), not by the Court as a body.
The Supreme Court is one of the world's most powerful courts, but works within the Constitution's limits. Its jurisdictions:
- Original: cases that go directly to it — disputes between the Union and States and among States. Only the Supreme Court can hear them, making it the umpire of federal relations and interpreter of Union and State powers.
- Writ: anyone whose Fundamental Right is violated may go straight to it (or to a High Court) for writs ordering the executive to act or not act.
- Appellate: the highest court of appeal — from High Courts, usually on a certificate that the case involves a serious question of law or the Constitution; appeals in death-sentence cases; and it may admit appeals even without such a certificate. It can reverse a ruling and give a new interpretation. High Courts too hear appeals from courts below.
- Advisory: the President may refer any matter of public importance or constitutional interpretation for advice. The Court is not bound to give it, and the President is not bound to accept it. Its use: legal opinion before acting, avoiding later litigation, and adjusting actions or laws.
- Special powers: special leave to appeal against any judgment or order of any court in India.
Reading the chart ‘Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India’ and the Articles box (pages 131–133)
- A branching chart from ‘Jurisdiction’ to Original (Union–State and inter-State disputes), Appellate (civil, criminal, constitutional), Advisory (advice to the President on public importance and law) and Writ (the five writs), with ‘Special Powers’ (special leave) below — the same content as our wheel.
- A box quotes Article 137 (the Court may review its own judgments) and Article 144 (all civil and judicial authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court). Its decisions bind all courts and are enforceable nationwide; it is not bound by its own past decisions; it decides contempt of itself.
Reading the side cartoons and ‘Check your progress’ (pages 133–134)
- A girl finds it funny that giving advice is optional and accepting it optional too — she thought courts gave binding decisions. Advisory opinions are not ‘decisions’ between parties; they are expert legal opinions (Beyond NCERT: though the Court has said its opinion carries great weight).
- A boy asks why the Court may change its own ruling — because courts can err — and whether the same judge can sit on the review bench. Review is usually heard by the same bench; a larger bench may later overrule an earlier decision.
- Check your progress — match: Bihar vs Union → Original jurisdiction; appeal from a Haryana district court → High Court; single integrated judiciary → single Constitution; declaring a law unconstitutional → Judicial review; (and advisory jurisdiction → Supreme Court).
⤵ A Presidential reference (Article 143 — Beyond NCERT)
Question of law or fact of public importancee.g. a bill's validity or a dispute
President refers itthe Court never gives advice on its own initiative (UPSC 2001, 2010)
Bench of at least five judges hears itArticle 145(3)
Court gives its opinionnot binding on the President
Court declinesas it may under Article 143(1), e.g. the 1993 Ayodhya reference
Beyond NCERT — jurisdiction details UPSC tests
- Article 131 (original): Union vs States, States vs States — not election disputes or Union vs Union Territory (UPSC 1996, 2012, 2014). Presidential election disputes also go only to the Supreme Court, under Article 71 (UPSC 1979).
- Article 136: special leave from any court or tribunal (except military tribunals). Article 138: Parliament can enlarge the Court's jurisdiction on Union-List matters (UPSC 2003, 2005).
- Article 141: law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts. Article 142: power to pass any order for ‘complete justice’, not limited by ordinary laws (UPSC 2019).
- Advisory jurisdiction (Article 143): under 143(1) the Court may answer; under 143(2) (disputes on pre-Constitution treaties) it must (UPSC 1994).
- High Courts (Articles 214–231): appointment (217), transfer (222), writs for Fundamental Rights ‘and for any other purpose’ (226), superintendence (227); one High Court can serve several States and Union Territories (231; UPSC 2006, 2008 — e.g. Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh share one, UPSC 2005). High Courts can declare central laws invalid, and amendments can be challenged in the Supreme Court (UPSC 2019). District judges are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court (Article 233; UPSC 2004).
- India and the USA both have a federal Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution; the USA has a dual court system, India does not (UPSC 1993). The Supreme Court is the custodian of the Constitution (UPSC 2015).
4. Judicial activism and public interest litigation
In simple wordsNormally only the person hurt can complain. PIL says: if a bonded labourer cannot reach the court, a neighbour, a journalist or a letter can bring the case for her.
Ordinarily only a personally aggrieved person can approach the courts. Around 1979 the Supreme Court began hearing cases filed by others on behalf of the aggrieved — public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation. It also took up prisoners' rights. Public-spirited citizens and organisations then sought intervention for existing rights, the poor's living conditions, the environment and more. PIL became the chief vehicle of judicial activism; courts even acted on newspaper reports and postal complaints.
Reading Irfan's cartoon (page 135) and the box ‘Some Early PILs’ (page 136)
- Irfan: a giant gavel, wielded with cries of ‘Order! Order!’, smashes the padlock labelled ‘strike’ on a post box, under a poster reporting that the court intervened in a postal strike. NCERT notes the judiciary has ruled bandhs and hartals illegal (Beyond NCERT: the Kerala High Court in 1997, upheld by the Supreme Court). The point: activism reaches far into everyday public life.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): newspaper reports of undertrials held longer than their possible sentences led an advocate to petition — an early PIL.
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980): a Tihar prisoner smuggled a note to Justice Krishna Iyer describing torture; the judge treated it as a petition (letter petitions were later abandoned).
Through PIL the courts expanded rights — clean air, unpolluted water and decent living as rights of the whole society — and let public-spirited people petition for those who cannot reach the courts. Justice Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): the problems of the poor are different and need a different judicial approach; blindly following adversarial procedure would leave their rights unenforced.
⤵ How a PIL works
A public wrongundertrials forgotten in jail, bonded labour, pollution
Anyone public-spirited filesa petition under Article 32 or 226 — once, even a letter
Court relaxes proceduremay appoint commissioners to investigate
Directions issuedto governments and agencies; the court monitors compliance
Wider effectrights expanded for whole groups; government made accountable
Impact: activism has democratised access to courts for groups, forced executive accountability, and tried to make elections fairer — candidates must file affidavits on assets, income and education. Costs: courts are overburdened; the line between judiciary and the other organs is blurred — reducing pollution, investigating corruption or reforming elections belong to the administration under legislative supervision; the balance among the three organs has become delicate.
Reading the side cartoons and Activity (pages 136–137)
- A boy has heard PIL called ‘private interest litigation’ — because some petitions serve publicity, business rivalry or politics; courts now screen frivolous PILs and impose costs.
- The Activity: study one PIL and how it served the public interest (e.g. CNG for Delhi's buses, Exercise Q5).
- A girl says activism tells the legislature and executive what to do — what if they started giving justice? Exactly the separation-of-powers worry.
Beyond NCERT
- PIL drew on the American idea of public-interest law (UPSC 1997 — USA); in India it is associated above all with Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer (UPSC 2008 — Krishna Iyer was never CJI). UPSC 2006 keyed Bhagwati as the CJI ‘when PIL was introduced’; strictly, PIL began around 1979–81 while Bhagwati was a puisne judge (he became CJI in 1985) — keep the key for that question. S.P. Gupta (1981) formally relaxed locus standi.
- Landmarks: M.C. Mehta cases on pollution; Vishaka (1997) guidelines on sexual harassment at work; disclosure by candidates (Union of India v. ADR, 2002). Mains 2022 asked about the ‘constitutionalisation of environmental problems’; Mains 2020 and 2026 about ‘judicial legislation’; Mains 2024 about the growth of PIL.
5. Judiciary, rights and judicial review
In simple wordsIf the school's rulebook says ‘no punishment without hearing the student’, and a teacher's new rule allows instant expulsion, the head can cancel the teacher's rule. Courts do this with laws that break the Constitution.
The Supreme Court remedies violations of rights in two ways: by writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, etc. — Article 32; High Courts under Article 226), and by declaring a law unconstitutional and inoperative (Article 13). Together these make it the protector of rights and interpreter of the Constitution.
Judicial review — perhaps the Court's most important power — is the power of the Supreme Court or High Courts to examine a law and declare it unconstitutional if it conflicts with the Constitution. The term appears nowhere in the Constitution, but a written constitution and the power to strike down laws violating Fundamental Rights imply it. It also covers the federal division: if the Centre legislates on a State-List subject, States can challenge it. It applies to State laws too. Writ and review powers, plus PIL, make the judiciary very powerful.
Reading ‘You are the Judge’ and the side cartoon (pages 138–139)
- Citizens file a PIL asking the municipality to remove slums and beautify the city to attract investors; slum-dwellers reply that their right to life matters more to the public interest than a clean city. Write a judgment — answered in the in-text section (Beyond NCERT: Olga Tellis, 1985, links livelihood to Article 21).
- A boy says he'd rather become a judge — no elections, lots of power. That is why judicial accountability and restraint matter.
PIL made the right against exploitation meaningful: courts heard cases on the blinding of jail inmates by police, inhuman conditions in stone quarries, sexual exploitation of children. NCERT notes PIL is spreading worldwide; South Africa's Bill of Rights makes it a fundamental right to bring cases about violations of other people's rights to its Constitutional Court.
Exam points on judicial review
- Judicial review means pronouncing on the constitutionality of laws and executive orders — not questioning the wisdom of laws (UPSC 2017).
- The Constitution provides for judicial review but does not define ‘basic structure’ (UPSC 2020).
- Writs restore a right in a particular case; judicial review strikes down the law itself (NCERT's ‘Check your progress’, page 140).
- Beyond NCERT: judicial review itself is part of the basic structure (Minerva Mills, 1980; L. Chandra Kumar, 1997); I.R. Coelho (2007) held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure (Mains 2016).
6. Judiciary and Parliament
In simple wordsIn a joint family, the elder who manages money and the elder who settles quarrels sometimes clash over who decides what. Parliament and the courts have had that kind of argument for seventy years.
Courts have brought within review areas once thought beyond it, such as the powers of the President and Governors, and have directed agencies — e.g. the CBI in the hawala case, the Narasimha Rao case and illegal petrol-pump allotments. The Constitution rests on limited separation of powers with checks and balances: Parliament supreme in law-making and amendment, the executive in implementation, the judiciary in settling disputes and checking constitutionality — yet conflicts recur.
Right after 1950 Parliament's restrictions on property for land reform were struck down; amendments were then challenged; the Court said even an amendment cannot abridge Fundamental Rights. The issues: scope of the property right; Parliament's power to curtail rights; its power to amend; and whether laws for Directive Principles may abridge rights. Between 1967 and 1973 the conflict was intense — land reform, preventive detention, job reservations, acquisition and compensation. In 1973, Kesavananda Bharati held that there is a basic structure no one, not even Parliament by amendment, can violate; that the property right was not part of it; and that the Court decides what the basic structure is. Removing property from Fundamental Rights (44th Amendment) also eased the relationship.
NCERT slip — the property dateThis chapter says property was removed from Fundamental Rights ‘in 1979’; Chapter 2 says 1978. The 44th Amendment Act was passed in 1978; the relevant provisions came into force in June 1979. Answer ‘44th Amendment, 1978’.
Reading Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar's quotation and the side cartoon (pages 142–143)
- From 23 November 1949: judicial independence is vital, but it must not become a dogma that lets the judiciary act as a super-legislature or super-executive; its job is to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate rights. The framers' own warning about activism.
- A girl asks why the Court can't list the basic-structure features once and for all. Because it is developed case by case (democracy, federalism, secularism, judicial review, free and fair elections, rule of law…); a fixed list could be outdated or gamed — but the open list is also why critics call it judge-made.
Unresolved issues remain: can courts regulate legislatures — e.g. protect someone punished for breach of privilege, or a member disciplined by the House? Legislatures have criticised the judiciary despite the bar on discussing judges' conduct, and courts have instructed legislatures on business — seen as violating parliamentary sovereignty. Each organ must respect the others' authority.
Reading ‘Check your progress’ (page 143) and R.K. Laxman's cartoon (page 144)
- Main issues of conflict: appointment of judges, scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, interference by Parliament in the judiciary — but not salaries, which are secured by the Constitution. Discuss which have been real.
- Laxman: a beaming politician in a courtroom throws his arms wide — honourably acquitted after a ‘nightmare’ — and swears never again to indulge in corruption, giving the game away. NCERT asks how active the judiciary is in curbing corruption. The irony: easy acquittals and shifting witnesses blunt the courts' role, as NCERT's conclusion admits.
Conclusion (NCERT): despite tensions, the judiciary's prestige has grown, and so have expectations; citizens wonder at easy acquittals and witnesses changing testimony for the rich and powerful. The judiciary is powerful, independent and has protected rights through new interpretations — but democracy rests on a delicate balance in which all institutions stay within constitutional limits.
Reading the NALSA ‘Legal Services Day’ poster (page 145)A full-page poster of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for Legal Services Day, 9 November 2018: Legal Services Authorities provide free legal aid and advice, spread legal awareness, organise Lok Adalats, promote alternative dispute resolution and compensate crime victims. Eligible for free legal services: women and children, SCs and STs, industrial workers, persons with disability, victims of disasters and violence, persons in custody, those with annual income below a notified limit (₹1 lakh or as notified), and victims of trafficking or begar. Institutions exist at national, State, district, taluka, High Court and Supreme Court levels. The point: access to justice for the poor.
Beyond NCERT — legal aid
- Article 39A (added by the 42nd Amendment) directs free legal aid; the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 created NALSA (functioning from 1995), State and district authorities (UPSC 2013, 2020; Mains 2023).
- Lok Adalats settle pending or pre-litigation matters by compromise — including compoundable criminal cases, motor-accident, pension and family disputes; an award is deemed a decree of a civil court and no appeal lies against it (UPSC 2005, 2009, 2010; Mains 2024).
NCERT's in-text questions, cartoons and activities — short answers
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ — Machal's case. (page 126)
Yes: delays defeat rights. Remedies — more judges and courts, filling vacancies, case management, Lok Adalats and ADR, technology, and limits on adjournments.
Activity: which factors constrain judges, and are they justified? (page 127)
Justified: the Constitution, laws, precedents, legal traditions, reasoned opinions of other courts. Practical but regrettable: time and staff shortages. Unjustified: fear of public criticism, media pressure or executive action — they threaten independence.
Why can we criticise the PM but not judges? Is asking this contempt? (page 127)
Judgments can be fairly criticised; what is punished is disobedience or attacks meant to undermine the court's authority. Asking a question is not contempt.
Does the Council of Ministers have the final say, or is the judiciary self-appointing? (page 128)
After 1993/1998, the collegium's recommendation effectively prevails; the government can delay or return names but rarely overrides — hence the ‘self-appointing’ criticism and the NJAC attempt.
Check your progress: why independence? Should the executive appoint judges? Your reform? (page 129)
Why: impartial dispute settlement, protection of rights against the government itself, rule of law. Executive appointment: risky — it could pack courts — but total judicial control lacks transparency. Reform: a broad-based commission with judges, executive and independent members; published criteria; reasons recorded; time limits.
Giving and accepting advice are both optional — funny? (page 133)
Advisory opinions are guidance, not judgments between parties; optionality keeps the Court out of political decisions while still letting the government test legality in advance.
Why can the Supreme Court change its own ruling? Same judge on review? (page 134)
Because courts can err and society changes; Article 137 allows review, and larger benches can overrule earlier decisions. Review petitions usually go to the same bench; overruling is by a larger bench.
Check your progress: match the items. (page 134)
Bihar vs Union of India → Original jurisdiction (Supreme Court). Appeal from a Haryana district court → High Court. Single integrated judiciary → Single Constitution. Declaring a law unconstitutional → Judicial review. Advisory jurisdiction → Supreme Court.
Why might PIL be called ‘private interest litigation’? (page 136)
Some petitions are filed for publicity, political point-scoring, business rivalry or to stall projects; courts now examine petitioners' bona fides and impose costs on frivolous PILs.
Activity: study one PIL. (page 137)
E.g. M.C. Mehta's vehicular-pollution case: the Court ordered Delhi's buses, taxis and autos to shift to CNG — cleaner air, but also the executive arguing about feasibility (see Exercise Q5).
‘Activism tells the legislature and executive what to do — what if they started giving justice?’ (page 137)
Each organ crossing into another's domain weakens separation of powers; courts should act where rights are violated and other organs fail, but avoid running administration.
You are the Judge: slum removal for city beautification — is it ‘public interest’? (page 138)
Balance both: a clean city is a legitimate public interest, but eviction without rehabilitation violates the slum-dwellers' right to life and livelihood (Article 21). Judgment: no eviction without notice, hearing and rehabilitation or resettlement; improve sanitation in situ; beautification cannot override the basic rights of the poorest — they too are ‘the public’.
‘I'd rather become a judge — power without elections.’ (page 139)
Judges have power, but bounded by the Constitution, appeals, review, removal and public scrutiny of reasoned judgments — and they cannot initiate policy.
Check your progress: when does the Court use review powers; difference between judicial review and writ? (page 140)
Review when a law (or action) violates Fundamental Rights, the federal division, or (for amendments) the basic structure. A writ is an order to restore a right in a specific case; judicial review declares a law itself invalid.
Why can't the Court list the basic structure once and for all? (page 143)
It evolves case by case as new issues arise; a closed list could not anticipate future threats — the cost is uncertainty and the charge of judicial overreach.
Check your progress: which have been the main conflict issues? (page 143)
Appointment of judges and the scope of Parliament's amending power — yes, repeatedly (collegium, NJAC; Golaknath, Kesavananda). Parliament's interference in the judiciary — occasionally (comments, attempts to curb review). Salaries — no; they are constitutionally protected.
Laxman: how active is the judiciary in curbing corruption? (page 144)
Active in monitoring CBI investigations and disclosure of candidates' assets, but convictions are slow and acquittals common because of weak investigation and witnesses turning hostile.
NCERT exercise — answer outlines
Try each question yourself first, then open the outline to compare. Q1 is in the self-check below.
Q2. Does independence of the judiciary mean it is accountable to no one? (100 words)
No. Independence means freedom from interference, not freedom from accountability. The judiciary answers to the Constitution and laws, gives reasoned judgments open to criticism and appeal, and judges can be removed for proved misbehaviour by Parliament. Higher courts correct lower ones; review and larger benches correct errors. It also answers to democratic traditions and public trust; the Ramaswami case and debates on collegium transparency show the demand for accountability.
Q3. What constitutional provisions maintain judicial independence?
Appointment without legislative involvement (consultation with the CJI; collegium); qualifications based on legal experience; security of tenure till 65/62; removal only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity by special majority of both Houses; salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund and not reducible; bar on discussing judges' conduct in the legislature (Article 121/211); contempt powers (129/215); restrictions on post-retirement practice (124(7), 220); separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50).
Q4. Dahanu chikoo farmers vs Reliance Energy (2005): what is the case, who benefits, who petitioned, the company's and farmers' arguments?
Case: pollution from a thermal power plant (fly ash, sulphur emissions) damaging Dahanu's orchards, fisheries and forests; failure to install pollution control. Beneficiaries: chikoo growers and the local environment. Petitioners: chikoo farmers (with environmentalists). Company: it acquired the plant only in 2003, submitted an installation schedule, power supply is vital, pollution not proved to cause crop loss, costs. Farmers: their livelihood and environment destroyed, repeated orders ignored, polluter pays, right to life and livelihood (Article 21).
Q5. Centre and Delhi on CNG (2001): governments at different levels; the Court's role; judiciary vs executive; policy, legislation, implementation and interpretation issues.
Governments: Union (Petroleum Ministry) and Delhi government. Court: had ordered all commercial vehicles to shift to CNG; refused to relax for buses. Judiciary vs executive: the Court set policy-like deadlines; the executive sought extensions, dual-fuel policy and low-sulphur diesel. Issues: policy (fuel choice, auto fuel policy — Mashelkar Committee), legislation (environmental law), implementation (converting about 10,000 buses, CNG supply), interpretation (right to clean air under Article 21). A classic example of activism and its tensions.
Q6. Ecuador: no binding precedent, no written reasons. Similarities or differences with India?
Different: India follows binding precedent — Supreme Court law binds all courts (Article 141), High Court decisions bind subordinate courts; judges give written reasoned judgments that can be appealed and criticised. Similar: only that courts can change views — but in India by larger benches with reasons. Precedent gives predictability and protects rights such as press freedom.
Q7. Match with Original, Appellate or Advisory: (i) the government wants to know whether it can pass a law on citizenship of residents of Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (ii) Tamil Nadu approaches the Court on the Cauvery dispute (iii) the Court rejected an appeal by people evicted from a dam site.
(i) Advisory (Article 143). (ii) Original (inter-State dispute, Article 131) — Beyond NCERT: river-water disputes are mainly for tribunals under Article 262, but NCERT's intended answer is original. (iii) Appellate.
Q8. How can PIL help the poor?
Removes the locus-standi barrier — others can file for them; cheap and informal (even letters once); courts appoint commissions to find facts; expands rights (livelihood, shelter, food, release of bonded labour, undertrials); forces government accountability; examples: Hussainara Khatoon, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the right-to-food case.
Q9. Can judicial activism lead to conflict between judiciary and executive? Why?
Yes: courts issuing directions on policy and administration (pollution, CBI investigations, CNG, appointments) intrude on executive domains; governments resist or delay; mutual criticism follows. Separation of powers needs restraint by courts and responsiveness by the executive, so that courts need not step in.
Q10. How is judicial activism related to Fundamental Rights; has it expanded their scope?
PIL is filed largely under Articles 32 and 226 to enforce Fundamental Rights. Activism has expanded Article 21 to dignity, livelihood, shelter, speedy trial, clean environment, legal aid, privacy; made Article 23 real for bonded labour; protected prisoners. So yes — at the cost of a heavier docket and debates about overreach.
What to remember
Numbers
CJI supersessions (NCERT)1973 (A.N. Ray over 3) and M.H. Beg over H.R. Khanna (1977)
Collegium (NCERT)CJI + 4 senior-most judges
Supreme Court rulings on appointments (NCERT)between 1982 and 1998
Ramaswami motion signatories108 MPs (1991)
Ramaswami inquiry finding1992
Removal majoritymajority of total + two-thirds present and voting, each House
Early PILsHussainara Khatoon (1979); Sunil Batra (1980)
Bandhua Mukti Morcha1984 (Justice Bhagwati)
Kesavananda Bharati1973 — basic structure
Intense Parliament–judiciary conflict1967–1973
Legal Services Day (poster)9 November
Retirement age (Beyond NCERT)SC 65 · HC 62
Supreme Court strength (Beyond NCERT)34 including CJI (2019 Act)
Removal motion signatures (Beyond NCERT)100 Lok Sabha / 50 Rajya Sabha
NJAC (Beyond NCERT)99th Amendment 2014; struck down 2015
Presidential reference bench (Beyond NCERT)at least 5 judges
One-liners
- Independence of the judiciary ≠ absence of accountability.
- President appoints judges after consulting the CJI; collegium since 1998.
- Removal only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, by special majority.
- Single integrated judiciary; Supreme Court law binds all courts.
- Original jurisdiction = federal umpire (Art. 131).
- Advisory opinion: not binding either way (Art. 143).
- PIL relaxed locus standi; judicial activism followed.
- Judicial review: Fundamental Rights, federal division, basic structure.
Traps to avoid
- The President appoints judges after ‘consultation’, not ‘consent’ (Art. 124, 217).
- M.H. Beg became CJI in 1977, not 1975 as NCERT says.
- High Court judges are transferred by the President after consulting the CJI (Art. 222), not by the Supreme Court as a body.
- Parliament fixes the number of Supreme Court judges and can enlarge its jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court gives advice only when the President asks.
- Election disputes of MPs are not in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
- Separation of judiciary from executive is a Directive Principle (Art. 50).
- Judicial review does not test the wisdom of laws.
- Property removed by the 44th Amendment in 1978 (in force 1979).
- A retired High Court judge may practise in the Supreme Court and other High Courts (Art. 220) — UPSC 2006's key treats ‘except the Supreme Court’ as correct.
How to strategise
Prelims — what UPSC asks
- Appointment and independence: who appoints (1987, 1991, 2013), autonomy safeguards (2012), salaries (2002), retired judges (1985, 2006, 2007, 2021), contempt (1997, 2022), removal (2007, 2019), NJC/NJAC (2005, 2019), number of judges (2014), Article 50 (2020).
- Structure and jurisdiction: judiciary statements (1992), High Courts (2005, 2006, 2008), district judges (1996, 2004), High Court CJ (1996), original jurisdiction (1996, 2012, 2014), presidential disputes (1979), advisory (1994, 2001, 2010), enlarging jurisdiction (2003, 2005), Article 142 (2019), High Courts and amendments (2019), Indian vs US federal court (1993).
- Review and activism: judicial review (2017, 2020), custodian of the Constitution (2015), PIL origins and people (1997, 2006, 2008). Legal aid: Lok Adalats (2005, 2009, 2010), NALSA (2013, 2020).
Mains — where it appears and how to answer
- GS2 — appointments and independence: NJAC judgment (2017), collegium evolution and India vs USA (2025), women in the higher judiciary (2021), judicial independence and democracy (2023).
- GS2 — activism and review: the basic structure and a proactive judiciary (2014), Coelho and judicial review (2016), judicial legislation and PIL guidelines (2020), environmental constitutionalism (2022), growth of PIL (2024), judicial legislation on passive euthanasia (2026), India–UK judicial convergence (2020).
- GS2 — access to justice: NALSA and free legal aid (2023), Lok Adalats vs arbitration tribunals (2024).
- Answer frame: constitutional provisions (Arts 50, 124–147, 214–231) → landmark cases → achievements → criticisms (pendency, opacity, overreach) → reforms (transparent appointments, more judges, ADR, restraint).
Self-check
Tap an option. NCERT's own exercise questions come first; the rest test the figures and common confusions.
1. NCERT Q1: Which is the odd one out — NOT a way independence of the judiciary is ensured?
2. Disputes between the Centre and the States fall under the Supreme Court's:
3. The Supreme Court tenders advice to the President:
4. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed on the ground of:
5. Which case first laid down the basic structure doctrine?
6. Separation of the judiciary from the executive is enjoined by:
7. Which was an early public interest litigation on undertrials?
8. The power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges rests with:
UPSC questions from this chapter
Open any question to attempt it in the Question bank — your attempt is saved to your progress.