INDIAN JUDICIARY CHALLENGES TODAY

POLITICAL SCIENCE

SUBMITTED BY
BASTAB BHUYAN

SM0122016

BA.LLB 1ST SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO
DR. MAYENGBAM NANDAKISHWOR SINGH

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL ACADEMY, ASSAM

 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1LITERATURE REVIEW
1.2AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.3RESEARCH QUESTION
1.4RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
4.  PENDENCY OF CASES IN INDIA
5. WOMEN HAVE LESS OPPORTUNITIES
6. NEPOTISM IS A PROBLEM
7. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IS REQUIRED
8. CONCLUSION
9. BIBLOGRAPY
 INTRODUCTION

The protection of the rule of law and the maintenance of legal supremacy are the judiciary's
two main responsibilities It protects individual rights, settles conflicts in line with the law,
and makes ensuring that democracy does not give way to individual or collective dictatorship.
The Indian legal system, which is based on the common law system, is a highly sophisticated
and broad framework of law and morality; however, it has retained its "lordships culture" and
experienced jurisprudence, which has led to inefficiency in the system and greater threats of
failure under its own weight.
This observation is not only made by judges but also by their counterparts across the bench,
the public prosecutors.
Additionally, because the profession is tainted with these vices, nepotism, casteism, and
favouritism have come to light as ancillary issues in the appointment of judges.
This is in addition to a perception of gender bias within the judiciary due to the extremely
low number of women appointed to positions of higher judiciary.
In addition, it is significant to note that India does not have a uniform civil code, despite the
fact that this is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution and has been in place since
1950.
The government has been informed of this issue numerous times, but due to what some refer
to as "minority appeasement" tactics, neither the executive nor the legislature have taken any
action to consider the situation.
Literature review
We have received many different ideas and points of view about the problems of our india
judiciary thanks to this article. We learned a lot about what is in Indian judiciary actually is
through this article, as well as the various categories of law. There are also several legal
doctrines, including the theories of judiciary . We also learned about the various viewpoints
held by JUSTICE V.R KRISHINA IYER. The article does a good job of showing the many
stages of its development. Depending on the use it was put to and the task it was supposed to
perform, the content of ‘INDIA JUDICIARY’ has evolved over time to suit the needs of the
time and the situation. As a result, JUDIAIRY has gone through a number of stages in its
development, which are as follows: Periods include the prehistoric, medieval and modern
eras. There are also numerous philosophers and schools of thought, each with their own
theories.
 Scope and Limitations
The five points on which this study has placed a particular emphasis are as follows:

➢ Thorough Research

➢ Thorough reading of literature

➢ Comprehensive internet access study on the topic

➢ Comprehensive records

➢ Detailed preparation

Research Methodology
Approach to research: Doctrinal research was used in this project. In doctrinal research,
materials are gathered from libraries, archives, etc. and secondary sources are utilised. We
used books, papers, and articles to create this project.

Type of research: Explanatory study was used in this project since a variety of topics needed
to be explained and because the project topic wasn't particularly novel or obscure.

Sources of Data: Secondary sources of data collecting, such as books, papers, websites, etc.,
were employed to gather data. There were no surveys or case studies performed.
 Lack of Transparency
Judges are elevated to a different class of people in Indian public life, not a disconnection
from the ordinary public that results in a loss of faith in the system of justice. Recent
revelations about, for example, such inconsistencies in their appointment and the necessity
for investigation show.
A rational, equitable, and open process for allocating benches must be ensured. Even if the
CJI is the Master of the Roster, making the SC roster public is a step in the right way.
Dispossession, nevertheless, must not be mistaken for arbitrary behaviour. It is crucial that
the CJI draughts the roster alongside other judges, ideally the collegium. If more than one
judge is appointed to a certain region, cases should be distributed among them at random.
Judges must be allocated cases based on their competence. 1

The Supreme Court's ruling in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.

Union of India ("NJAC")2 case made clear the necessity for increased openness in the way
the collegium system operates. "The unwillingness to attend collegium meetings because
their work is so muddled that even the members do not know the reason for the selection of a
judge illustrates the profound hatred that appointments produce," stated Judge Chelameswar.
"Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand" is something that needs to be
made sure of. The panel's conclusion was recently made public, and the memorandum of
work on judge appointments is posted on the DOJ website, but the meaning of this
consultation and opinion has to be clarified in light of the circumstances.

There has been much discussion regarding the application of RTI to the judiciary, but courts
frequently use the ambiguous language that a balance must be struck between judicial
independence and judicial accountability in order to prevent the judiciary from being
"precluded from rule of law" and to prevent the RTI tool from turning into a surveillance tool
over the independence of the judiciary. Even if the Constitution does not provide an absolute
right to privacy, the judiciary must be shielded from any invasion of personal information. 3

1
Prashant Bhushan & Anjali Bhardwaj, A transparency deficit, The Indian Express (Feb. 22, 2018).
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-judges-conference-cji-indian-constitution-
5073294/.
2
] Supreme Court decision in Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC
5457
3
] Justice Rangan Gogoi, Challenges facing the Indian Judiciary – Identification and Resolution, during the One
Day Special Programme for District Judges (Dec. 7, 2013).
As the Delhi High Court has already decided that the independence of the judiciary is the
obligation of the judges, not a privilege, conflicting public interest claims must be assessed
alongside privacy concerns. Finally, in the case of Supreme Court of India v. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal4, the Supreme Court accepted a limited restraint upon itself, holding that
the Supreme Court of India, as a public body, is expected to include the office of the Chief
Justice of India as well as other judges, according to Article 124 of the Constitution. 5 It was
also discovered that the offices comprise the Supreme Court as a whole and are thus a part of
the Supreme Court.

The Way forward

In India, we may use fundamental international best practises for judicial transparency.
The first is to make internal information about the judiciary available to the public, such as
judicial selection and appointment, financial disclosures, and court statistics.
The importance of disclosing judicial decisions comes second.

It improves people' and the press' access to the courts, encourages adherence to decisions, and
improves uniformity in judicial decision-making. Selection and appointment of judges
Appointing judges through transparent and open processes protects judges from undue
external influences wielded by other branches of government or interest groups.
Similarly, openness aids in the selection of individuals who fulfil the fundamental
international requirements for credentials, such as high professional standing and the required
legal abilities and expertise.

Financial disclosures to the courts

4
Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1459.
5
The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 124.
Public officials must file asset and income disclosure declarations.
Such revelations have been a critical component of anti-corruption operations around the
world.
Increase faith in government, including the judiciary.
Court data are published.
Another essential method of promoting judicial transparency is the collection, analysis, and
dissemination of statistical data. Such data allows for the analysis of performance, the
identification of accomplishments, the detection of problems, and the development of
strategies to address them. Citizens and the press have access to the courts.
Public access to the courts, including through the media, is critical for publicising the
activities of the judiciary.
Such access may comprise video, audio, or transcription recordings of court proceedings.

The press also plays a vital role in alerting citizens about the important work of the courts,
particularly in matters of broad public importance.
Because civilians do not often attend trials in the courts.
Thus, allowing the press access to courtrooms, whether in person or virtually, is one approach
to raise public knowledge of these processes and their outcomes.
Publication of judicial decisions
Access to Supreme Court decisions is especially important because those judgements affect
government institutions and actions in general, not just the cases at hand.
Such judgements may address issues relating to individual rights or governmental
obligations, and hence have a significant impact on how people' rights are viewed and
safeguarded. The scope of an independent committee and the creation of a public website
Having an independent committee that makes decisions on matters such as a judge
misbehaving or lacking a work ethic.
To penalise the judges, the committee can issue written warnings, temporary suspensions, or
even fines, and finally impeachment as the final procedure can be altered.

Having a website as a venue for offended laymen to make a complaint against any judge
misbehaving or asking for sexual favours that is open to everybody. When the chief justice is
involved with senior Supreme Court judges and the president, it can be presided over by the
chief justice and president.
Adopting such measures will not jeopardise judicial independence, but rather increase
transparency and accountability in the system.

Conclusion

Our country's judicial system is the protector of our Constitution. When all other government
machinery fails to do its job, the judiciary gets scrutinised.
The trust and faith of the Indian people are required for the judiciary to function properly.
However, in recent years, we have seen a decline in the integrity and dignity of judges.

Favoritism, nepotism, corruption, and bribery have steadily forced their way into the legal
system, where they are protected by the weapon of contempt of court and unaccountability.
Judicial accountability is requested, if not demanded, because the judiciary is the most
powerful branch in delivering justice as the first human right to the people.
The road to judicial accountability is long and difficult, but adequate accountability for such a
powerful and crucial organ as the Indian court is critical for the country's Rule of Law and
democracy.
We may soon have an efficient and responsible judicial system where the Rule of Law
prevails by taking a few measures toward a more transparent judiciary.
 The Public Prosecutor's Office
The Public Prosecutor is a crucial member of the criminal justice system who prosecutes
cases on behalf of the state and, in essence, represents the community. However, there have
been criticisms of the way the prosecutorial system has operated, with claims of impartiality,
political subjugation of interests, abuse of power, inefficiency, etc. being made. In Sheo
Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar6, the Supreme Court acknowledged the politicisation of the
solemn office of a PP. The issue of appointment of a PP is widely debated because it is
claimed that the state, as the appointing authority, could use the office of a PP at their
discretion and pleasure by abusing their powers, including the power of withdrawal from
prosecution. where they emphasised that under pressure from the State Government honest
PP's had no choice but to quit. In the case of Laxman Rupchand Meghwani v. State of
Gujarat7, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue of the appropriateness and fitness of the PP.
The Court stated that the term "fit" must not be interpreted mechanically to refer to eligibility
or objective criteria under section 24(7) of the CrPC8, but rather must be interpreted such that
the person's capability to perform the duties of a PP must be present along with the
requirement that the person's reputation be in accordance with the institutional integrity of the
office. As a result, the calibre of his work and the manner in which he conducted himself in
court would make a persuasion. While the PP whose appointment sparked the controversy in
the present case was solely appointed on the eligibility criteria by looking at marksheet, the
challenge to the law that it being excessively objective has been watered down with such
interpretation of the Court which gives primacy to institutional integrity of the office and
once this objective criteria is subjected to the true meaning of the word ‘fitness’ then the
panel of names sent to the State Government would also require even the government to
choose the candidate by ensuring that he is ‘fit’ and ‘suitable.’ However, the fitness of the
candidates must be tested on the basis of more objective data, allowing the Judicial scrutiny
of the material used to determine the fitness of the candidates. In my opinion, even the quality
of the candidate's work and his conduct towards the bar members should be scrutinised using
objective data, rather than the Sessions judge's opinion, which may take into account the
opinions of other bar members and some independent investigation. thus the view that
6
Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.
7
Laxman Rupchand Meghwani v. State of Gujarat, 2016 GLH (1) 485.
8
] The code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. §24 (7).
constituted the foundation for the candidate's enlisting cannot be investigated by the courts
Thus, such partiality might be reduced by using this new criterion in conjunction with a more
objective approach to evidence that may aid in the construction of a judgement about fitness.

Certain values are similar to PP's functioning, one of which is his unbiased disposition toward
a case. However, at times, public scrutiny leads to criticism, and complaints are levelled
against the impartiality of the PP, whom they see to be biased in favour of the accused,
particularly when withdrawals are made owing to a lack of evidence. The Supreme Court
examined the impartiality of the PP in Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand9, where it was said that
the PP is not expected to exhibit a desire to settle the case into conviction in any way,
regardless of the genuine evidence available in the case. This policy is based on lofty
principles upon which the office of PP is founded, such that every genuine benefit to which
the accused is entitled must be delivered by the PP to the accused even if neglected by the
defence counsel. As a result, when evaluating evidence, the PP must consider whether the
evidence would amount to a conviction or whether it would cause undue hardship to the
accused, and he must be detached from his desire to reach a conviction at any cost, as he is
not acting as a private counsel on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, there have been instances
where the Courts have interpreted Section 2(u)[11] in a mechanical manner while referring to
the terms "means and includes," in this case, reference is made to the case of Varghese John
v. State of Kerala[12], where the PP delegated a murder case to a Junior with only four
months of experience, the court interpreted the definition of PP under 2(u) in a liberal manner
and considered such delegation as valid. However, the Court in this case failed to recognise
that such a liberal interpretation would open the floodgates for delegations by Public
Prosecutors, and such delegations could be arbitrary, as public opinion of the PP's is
deteriorating and there is a need to inspire people's confidence in this office. At the same
time, there is an urgent need for control of prosecutors' delegation in the shape of certain
ethical or practical norms, and the Court has subjected the employment of these delegated
powers to the necessity of PP oversight. As a result, while some criticisms to the
Prosecutorial system may be well-founded, they are not incompatible with the overarching
demand of justice and fairness connected with this position. Now, because the PP is under
tremendous pressure to use his withdrawing power from the state and policymakers, the
Courts have interpreted the power to be'solely the PP's discretion on the basis of broader

9
Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467
considerations of public interests,' and any instruction or recommendation with regard to
policy consideration could merely act as a suggestion. However, this ability is not without
limitations. Regulated by the Court's permission rider, where the Court must exercise its
Judicial discretion and, it becomes essential on the Court's side to satisfy that the withdrawal
of the prosecution would serve the public interests based on the material. However, in many
circumstances, this power was given a broader meaning in terms of independent exercise of
mind and other elements, and in other cases, there was even private protest. Thus, the rider
requesting Court permission assures that the State government does not exert undue influence
over the PP, as the ultimate inspection prior to consent is always due at the hands of the
Court.

Way forward
The discussion about prosecutors has mostly focused on the separation of the institutions of
the police and prosecutors. This jurisprudence was designed to ensure that the police do not
have an undue impact on case prosecution and that the two institutions are not pigeonholed in
such a way that the progress of justice is harmed. The moment has come to move the
discourse ahead toward collaborative functioning and ensuring that the criminal justice
system has a prosecutor who is not just competent but also involved.

Conclusion
The commission of a criminal act is typically seen as an offence against the state, to be dealt
with by the State Executive's Criminal Justice machinery. As a result of careful analysis of
the preceding information, it is crystal evident that it is not the obligation of Public
Prosecutors to seek conviction at any cost. It is also not their responsibility to behave as an
avenging angel for the victim. On the contrary, their fundamental job is to guarantee that
justice is served, and to that end, they must present to the court all relevant evidence, even
material favourable to the accused. . A corollary to this is the duty of a Public Prosecutor to
bring to the Court's attention any point that the defence could have brought but did not.
However, they cannot act as though they are defending the victim or appearing on behalf of
the accused. There is no fair trial when the Prosecutor acts as if she or he is defending the
accused. A Public Prosecutor is a separate institution from the police, and the police cannot
direct her/him to conduct prosecution in a specific manner. Police, politicians, or any other
third party cannot influence her/his conduct, including the decision to withdraw a case. The
Public Prosecutor represents the State, not the police, and is only swayed by public interest.
Public prosecutors must fulfil their duties in a strictly fair and honest manner, and they must
not utilise incorrect procedures meant to achieve erroneous convictions. A Public Prosecutor
has the authority of a minister of justice, not only that of an advocate.

Pendency of case in India

One of the most serious problems with the Indian legal system is the backlog of cases. If the
vacancies are filled, the backlog will be reduced, making the court system more efficient.
According to a 2015 study, however, there were over 400 unfilled posts in the country's 24
High Courts. The number of pending Supreme Court cases has surpassed 60,000. There are
around 25-30 million litigations ongoing in various courts. The courts receive only 0.2
percent of GDP in budgetary assistance. The judge-to-population ratio is 10.5-11 judges per
million persons, whereas it should be 50-55. At the same time, due to the general lack of
availability of judges, there is a high possibility of a decrease in the effectivity of previously
pronounced judgements, as recently witnessed by the Supreme Court, which found that
section 66A of the IT Act was still used by police officers to charge people under the said
enactment even after it was declared null and void. [13] As a result, the enormous issues we
face now, as well as the pressing needs of the future, force us to reconsider and review our
current jurisprudence in order to deal with the increasing complexity of our problems. An
urgent examination of our basic and procedural concepts is required. Such a discussion must
centre on shortening the judicial process without endangering the present highly polished
principles or the quest of greater refinement. It is unfortunate that judicial reform has hitherto
been concentrated on making exterior improvements to the judicial superstructure (e.g.,
expanding courts, introducing e-courts, adding support people, etc.), with little discussion of
reevaluating our jurisprudential aims. I am certain that an informed debate along the lines
mentioned above will result in a long-term solution to our problems.

The way forward

The first and most important remedy to the problem addresses one of the primary causes of
case pending, namely frequent adjournments. The main reasons for adjournment, as stated
above, were either too much or too little work with the advocate. So the solution is to create
an Alternate Dispute Resolution Forum within the court. Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) empowers the Court to appoint a Commission to conduct local
investigations deemed necessary or reasonable for explaining any topic in dispute. Section 89
of the CPC refers to the settlement of disputes outside the court, which can be referred to as
arbitration, conciliation, or judicial settlement, including Lok Adalat or mediation. Clubbing
Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 89 of the CPC allow the court to offer an Alternate Dispute
Redressal Forum (ADR) in civil matters that have been ongoing for more than three years.
Lawyers ready to work can be chosen for this ADR committee, and a panel of arbitrators
should be formed. The criteria for selecting lawyers for this panel must be that a lawyer with
at least ten years of court experience can nominate himself for this committee. Fees can be
agreed upon in advance, and the lawyers will be required to dispose of the matter and write
the judgement. This judgement will be presented to the court for finalisation, and if the
parties have any objections to any aspect of the judgement, they can do so during the
finalisation process, and the court will rectify or pass the original order after hearing the
objection. Furthermore, the fees for the lawyers on the arbitration panel will be paid only
once the judgement has been written by them, ensuring that there is no backlog of cases.
Since many lawyers who do not have work will volunteer for this committee, and lawyers
will gain a good understanding of how a judge works, if any of the lawyers are appointed as
judges in the future, the lawyer will eventually become a good working judge, and more
lawyers who do not have the opportunity to advance their legal careers will also benefit. A
similar type of commission can be formed in criminal matters. In criminal proceedings, minor
tasks such as witness questioning and cross-examination add to the court's effort. If a
commission is formed, the job will be split and the courts will become faster and more
efficient. However, all of this requires a proper infrastructure for lawyers to work in. A
significant workload is in district courts, where lawyers labour outside the court with a chair
and table beneath a shed or something similar. This working environment is inadequate for
this job. Not only suitable infrastructure be provided in court premises, but proper security
must also be provided so that these commissions can work without fear or bias created by
security threats. The second possible remedy will address the underlying cause, which is the
early retirement age of judges, and may be able to resolve the pending appointment of judges.
In India, the retirement age for judges in district courts is 60 years, 62 years in high courts,
and 65 years in the Supreme Court. In compared to other nations' courts, India has the lowest
retirement age. In 2019, it was reported that the retirement age in the High Court might be
raised to 65 years, but the Supreme Court's retirement age would remain unchanged, however
nothing came of this. To address the issue of retirement age, judges should be subjected to a
screening committee when they reach the age of 60 for District Judges, 62 for High Court
Judges, and 65 for Supreme Court Judges. The Health Condition of the Judge, Any
Misconduct or Complaint Against the Judge, and the Number of Cases Disposed of by the
Judge are the factors that must be examined by this screening committee. When all three
requirements are met in favour of the Judge, his or her tenure should be extended to 65 years.
Both the Supreme Court and High Court Judges (whose tenure has been increased) will go
through the screening committee at the age of 65, and if they are fit, their tenure should be
increased to the age of 70, after which the judge should retire, and these retired judges can be
selected in the selection committee for the same.

Conclusion

If these two remedies are implemented and other variables are addressed, the problem of
pendency will be much reduced, but it will still persist. The government tried numerous
alternatives, such as fast track courts and regular Lok Adalat, but they were not successful
due to poor execution. These methods can lower the number of cases pending, however their
bad execution rendered them ineffective
 Women have less opportunities.
Justice Sridevan has branded the Indian judiciary as a "old boys club." Recently, The
Women's Lawyers Association raised this issue in the case of M/s PLR Projects Pvt Ltd v.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, for filling the pending vacancies of Lawyers in HC's, this came up
before former CJI Bobde, while showing the data which reflected the skewed representation
of women in the Judiciary, even though CJI called for more women in the Judiciary but gave
a stereotypical response Even though empathy is gender neutral, a gender balanced
representation is vital since both genders must participate in the decision-making process of
the country's top court. Furthermore, the presence of fewer than 10% female judges is a
concerning number of representation. However, the recent selections of four female judges to
the Supreme Court raise hopes that the "glass barrier" would be broken in 2027, with Justice
Nagarathna becoming the first woman Chief Justice. [14]Nepotism is a problem.
The problem of nepotism in India is well known, but it is rarely addressed due to the fear of
undermining "the Independence of the Judiciary." This issue arises primarily as a result of
"shady" appointment procedures involving the judiciary; recently, the appointment of one-
third of the Allahabad High Court's 33-judge panel was called into question because some of
them were blood relatives of former or sitting judges of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad
High Court. Some have even claimed that the NJAC decision was not intended to preserve
judicial independence, but rather to preserve nepotism, casteism, and favouritism at the level
of higher Judiciary. [15] Justice Rang Nath Pandey also expressed his concerns to PM Modi,
describing how people with no proper knowledge of the law are being appointed as judges.
He went on to highlight the flaws in the collegium system, noting that the Judges are
appointed first, and their names are only revealed after their appointment, removing any
possibility of due diligence over this appointment and allowing extraneous factors to creep
into the appointment process.

Way forward
There is a need to sensitise and emphasise inclusion among India's populous in order to effect
institutional, social, and behavioural change.
The necessity of the hour is to change the patriarchal attitude in suggesting and accepting the
names of people to be promoted as high court judges, and to provide greater representation to
deserving female attorneys and district judges for elevation.
Women cannot be treated fairly until they are empowered It is past time for all those involved
in the appointment of judges to the high court and the Supreme Court to recognise the
importance of ensuring appropriate representation for women in the judiciary.
Indeed, the superior court, like the inferior judiciary, should contain horizontal reservations
for women without diluting merit.
 Uniform Civil Code is required
According to Article 44[16] of the Indian Constitution, "the state must endeavour to establish
for the citizens a consistent civil code across the territory of India." In light of Article 44 of
the Indian Constitution, it is sometimes questioned if it is not past time for India to develop a
common civil code. Personal laws are civic rules that control matters such as marriage,
divorce, adoption, and inheritance. The item, as one of the guiding principles of state policy,
should certainly be "cherished" rather than forced on any community or groups. Almost every
country in the world has a universal civil code for its citizens. The major purpose of
developing an universal civil code is to eliminate religious discrimination. Personal law in
almost all faiths has been used to oppress women, repressing them most of the time under the
pretence of religious and civic duty. Historically, personal laws have played a crucial role in
promoting gender disparity. Furthermore, in a nation like India, where personal laws are in a
way setting separate set of rules for individuals, and uniformity of laws is a basic component
of any jurisprudence in the world, the necessity for UCC adoption develops. In the case of
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[17], the Supreme Court stated that the Uniform
Civil Code will contribute in the preservation of the country's unity. The court also declared
that the conflict of ideas arising from diverse laws in the country shall be handled. . At the
same time, it expressed hope that the Uniform Civil Code would be applied in India;
nevertheless, the dispute is still ongoing after 36 years, as seen by the demand made by the
Delhi High Court. [18] However, the court is reliant on the government, even though it has
the authority to make binding directives in the past.
There are a number of issues surrounding the operation of the Judiciary, ranging from
structural issues such as the appointment of judges and the resulting transparency deficit to
sociological issues such as the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code, but the existence
of these issues cannot be used to determine the responsiveness of the Indian Judiciary, as
steps are being taken in every critical issue surrounding the issue and necessarily the
Executive and Legislature (independence of judiciary).
[1] Prashant Bhushan & Anjali Bhardwaj, A transparency deficit, The Indian Express (Feb.
22, 2018). https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-judges-
conference-cji-indian-constitution-5073294/.

[2] Supreme Court decision in Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association v. Union of
India, AIR 2015 SC 5457.

[3] Justice Rangan Gogoi, Challenges facing the Indian Judiciary – Identification and
Resolution, during the One Day Special Programme for District Judges (Dec. 7, 2013).

[4] Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1459.

[5] The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 124.

[6] Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877.

[7] Laxman Rupchand Meghwani v. State of Gujarat, 2016 GLH (1) 485.

[8] The code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. §24 (7).

[9] Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467.

[10] The code of Criminal procedure, 1973. §2(u).

[11] Varghese John v. State of Kerala, O.P. No. 16607 of 1994.

[12] Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘States have equal duty to comply with SC judgment on Sec. 66A
of IT Act’, The Hindu (August 01, 2021). https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/states-
have-equal-duty-to-comply-with-sc-judgment-on-sec-66a-of-it-act/article35670305.ece.

[13] Glass ceiling finally broken as Justice Nagarathna set to be India’s first female CJI in
2027, The Indian Express (Sept. 01, 2021).
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/sep/01/glass-ceiling-finally-broken-as-
justice-nagarathna-set-to-be-indias-first-female-cji-in-2027-2352591.html

[14] ‘Nepotism, casteism’: Judge pans judicial appointments in letter to PM Modi, The
Hindustan Times (July 03, 2019). https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/judge-writes-
to-pm-modi-over-appointments/story-PSVAIh3Xz2WMP9h71GPGBL.html

[15] The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 44.

[16] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945.

[17] Delhi HC backs Uniform Civil Code, urges Centre to take necessary steps, The
Economic Times ( July 09, 2021). https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/delhi-hc-backs-
uniform-civil-code-urges-centre-to-take-necessary-steps/articleshow/84266205.cms.