75 Years of Supreme Court | 02 Sep 2024

Source: PIB

Why in News?

Recently, the President unveiled the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court (established - 26th January 1950) to mark the 75th year of its establishment. 

• The flag features the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building and the book of the Constitution of India. 
• Also, the Prime Minister released a commemorative postage stamp celebrating 75 years of the Supreme Court of India. 

What are the Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s 75 Years Journey? 

• Role of Judiciary in Strengthening Democracy: The judiciary in India has played a crucial role in safeguarding democracy and liberal values since independence.  
  • It has acted as the guardian of the Constitution, a protector of the rights of the marginalised, and a counter-majoritarian institution of governance. 
• Evolution of Supreme Court (SC): The journey of the SC and its role in strengthening democracy and protecting personal liberty can be classified into four phases. 
  • First Phase (1950- 1967): It reflected adherence to constitutional text and judicial restraint. 
    • Focus on Judicial Review: In the initial years post-independence, the judiciary maintained a conservative approach, limiting itself to interpreting the Constitution as written.  
      • It exercised judicial review to check legislative actions without overstepping its boundaries. 
    • Avoidance of Ideological Influence: The judiciary avoided being swayed by government ideologies like socialism and affirmative action.  
      • For example, the Kameshwar Singh case, 1952, declared the abolition of zamindari as illegal but refrained from nullifying constitutional amendments passed by the Parliament. 
    • Respect for Legislative Supremacy: Cases like the Champakam Dorairajan case, 1951 show that while the judiciary struck down reservations in educational institutions as a violation of the right to equality, it avoided confrontation with Parliament, adhering to a positivist interpretation of the Constitution. 
  • Second Phase (1967-1976): It exhibited judicial activism and confrontation with Parliament. 
    • Expansion of Fundamental Rights: The Golak Nath judgment, 1967 marked a shift towards a more expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, challenging the Parliament's legislative power and reasserting the power of judicial review. 
      • In the Golak Nath judgement, 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights. 
    • Landmark Rulings on Constitutional Amendments: The SC's decision in the Keshavananda Bharati case, 1973 introduced the 'basic structure' doctrine, which limited Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, setting the stage for a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. 
    • Impact of the Emergency on Judicial Independence: The national emergency and the supersession of three senior-most judges to appoint Justice AN Ray as the Chief Justice of India majorly contributed to the judicial surrender in the ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, 1976 case which supported the government’s act of suspending the right to life under Article 21 of the fundamental rights.  
      • This judgment marked a new low for Constitutional democracy in the country besides exposing the institutional vulnerability of the higher judiciary.  
  • Third Phase (1978- 2014): It displayed judicial activism and expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 
    • Course Correction Post-Emergency: After the Emergency, the judiciary sought to regain its independence and credibility. The Maneka Gandhi case, 1978 broadened the interpretation of Article 21, expanding the scope of the right to life and personal liberty. 
    • Rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The judiciary, through cases like Hussainara Khatoon case, 1979 expanded access to justice by allowing public-spirited individuals to file petitions on behalf of marginalised groups.  
      • PILs became a tool for judicial activism, addressing issues such as human rights, environmental protection, and governance. 
    • Collegium System: The judiciary sought to maintain its autonomy by introducing the collegium system for the appointment of judges.  
      • This system was later challenged by the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 which the judiciary struck down to protect its independence. 
  • Fourth Phase (2014-Present): It focussed on the liberal interpretation of the constitution and considering the Constitution as a living document. 
    • Liberal  Interpretation: The Supreme Court has upheld the revocation of Article 370 for full integration of J&K to the Indian Union. 
    • Sustaining Judicial Activism: Despite criticisms, the judiciary has continued to assert its role in protecting constitutional rights. E.g., the opaque electoral bonds scheme was held invalid by the Supreme Court. 
      • In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised adultery  as being violative of Articles 14. 

What are the Key Challenges Facing the Supreme Court of India? 

• Volume of Pending Cases: At the end of 2023, the Supreme Court was saddled with 80,439 pending cases. This backlog contributes to substantial delays in justice delivery that undermine the efficiency and credibility of the judiciary.  
• Dominance of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): Special Leave Petitions (preferred means for civil and criminal appeals) constitute the majority of the Supreme Court's case list, overshadowing other types of cases like writ petitions and constitutional challenges.  
  • This concentration impacts the court's ability to address a diverse range of issues effectively. 
• Selective Prioritization of Cases: The "pick and choose model" allows certain cases to be prioritised over others, leading to perceptions of preferential treatment. For example, a high-profile bail application was given swift attention compared to other significant cases. 
• Judicial Evasion: The backlog has sometimes led to "judicial evasion," where important cases are avoided or delayed. Notable examples include delays in addressing the Aadhaar biometric ID scheme challenge and the electoral bonds case. 
• Conflict of Interest and Integrity: Allegations of corruption within the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, pose challenges to its integrity and public confidence.  
  • E.g. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of Calcutta High Court resigned as the Judge and soon after entered politics highlighting a possible conflict of interest. 
• Concerns of Appointment of Judges: The process of judicial appointments, particularly the role of the Collegium system, has been a topic of contention.  
  • There have been discussions on reforms like the National Judicial Appointment Commission to make the appointment process more transparent and accountable. 

Way Forward 

• All India Judicial Recruitment: Recently, the President called for Judicial Recruitment at all India level. Establishing a national standard for judicial recruitment ensures consistency and quality across states, improving efficiency.  
  • Judicial recruitments to district courts should not be restricted anymore by the narrow domestic walls of regionalism and confines of State-centred selections. 
• Case Management Reforms: Implement advanced case management techniques to streamline processes.  
  • For example, the e-Courts Project aims to digitise and automate court operations, which can help in managing and reducing case backlog. 
  • Expand the use of the Supreme Court's Case Management System (CMS) to enhance tracking and management of cases. 
• Promote Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encourage the use of ADR mechanisms for cases that do not require Supreme Court intervention, as outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• Transparent Case Listing: Develop a transparent case listing and prioritisation protocol.  
  • The Supreme Court Portal could include a feature to publicly track case statuses and priorities, ensuring transparency. 
• Clarify Institutional Goals: Define and communicate clear institutional goals. The Judicial Performance Evaluation framework could be adapted to assess and realign the court’s goals. 
  • The Supreme Court’s Research and Training Institute can play a role in supporting this focus. 
• Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Implement stricter accountability measures for judges. For example, establish an Independent Judicial Accountability Commission similar to the Central Vigilance Commission for government officials.