Judicial Pendency and Reforms in India

Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions. Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity. Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by:
- A majority of the total membership of the House, and
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services.  * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.  * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights. Hence, neither of the statements is correct.