News Highlights: An in-house inquiry was ordered by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) against Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma due to the alleged discovery of unaccounted cash at his residence after a fire.
Background of Controversy:
A fire at Justice Varma's residence led to the discovery of unaccounted cash.
Justice Varma denied knowledge of the cash.
The CJI formed a three-member committee: Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman.
Security records were requested, and Varma's transfer to Allahabad High Court was proposed.
Origin and Evolution of In-House Enquiry Mechanism:
Landmark Case – 1995: C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee established the formal recognition of in-house inquiries due to allegations against the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
Hiatus Between Bad Behaviour and Impeachable Misbehaviour: The Supreme Court identified a gap between bad behaviour and impeachable misbehaviour under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
1997 Report: A five-member committee devised a procedure for remedial action against judges, which was adopted in December 1999.
Revised Procedure Post-2014 Case:
Case: Additional District Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, MP HC (2014) led to a review and restructuring of the in-house procedure.
Justices J.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra restructured the process into a seven-step framework.
Steps in the In-House Process:
Complaint submission to CJI, High Court Chief Justice, or President of India.
CJI assesses the complaint and may request a preliminary report from the High Court Chief Justice.
If credible, the CJI forms a three-member inquiry committee.
The committee determines its procedures adhering to natural justice.
The committee submits a report to the CJI stating whether allegations are substantiated and warrant removal.
If misconduct is not serious, the CJI may issue an advisory or record findings.
For serious misconduct, the CJI advises resignation or retirement; if refused, no further judicial work is assigned. The CJI informs the President and Prime Minister for formal removal proceedings.
Appointment and Removal of Judges:
Appointment of CJI: President appoints based on outgoing CJI's recommendation (seniority).
Appointment of Supreme Court Judges: CJI consults Collegium members and senior High Court judge; opinions are forwarded to the President.
Appointment of High Court Judges: Initiated by the High Court Chief Justice with senior judges; recommendations go through the Chief Minister, Governor, Union Government, and Collegium.
Constitutional Provisions on Judicial Impeachment:
Relevant Articles: Articles 124(4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament.
A three-member inquiry committee investigates allegations.
The motion requires a 2/3 majority of members present and >50\% of the total membership in each House.
The President issues an order for removal if the motion passes.
“Incapacity” (inability to perform judicial functions).
Removal Proceedings Against Indian Judges:
Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Impeachment motion failed to secure the required majority.
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): Resigned before the motion could be taken up in the Lok Sabha.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015): Remarks expunged from court record; the motion not carried forward.
Justice S.K. Gangele (2015): The committee did not find sufficient material evidence to support the allegations, and the motion was dropped.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (2017): The motion did not progress to the inquiry or voting stage.
Collegium System in the Indian Supreme Court
Definition and Legal Status: The Collegium System is a judicially evolved mechanism for appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
It has no statutory or constitutional backing but stems from the interpretation of Articles 124 and 217.
Evolution of the Collegium System:
First Judges Case (1981): S.P. Gupta v. Union of India - Gave primacy to the Executive.
Second Judges Case (1993): SC Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India - Gave primacy to the Judiciary; consultation means concurrence.
Third Judges Case (1998): Presidential Reference under Article 143 - Formalized the five-member Collegium.
Supreme Court Collegium: Headed by the CJI and includes the four senior-most judges.
High Court Collegium: Headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court and includes the two senior-most judges.
Role of the Executive: The Executive processes recommendations and may seek one-time reconsideration. If reiterated by the Collegium, the Executive is bound.
99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014
Objective: To replace the Collegium System with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Legislative Journey:
Passed by the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2014, and the Rajya Sabha on August 14, 2014.
Received Presidential assent on December 31, 2014; enforced on April 13, 2015.
Ratified by 16 out of 29 state legislatures.
Constitutional Provisions Introduced:
Article 124A: Composition of the NJAC – CJI, two senior-most judges, Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons.
Article 124B: Functions of the NJAC – recommending appointments and transfers; ensuring ability and integrity.
Article 124C: Empowered Parliament to regulate NJAC procedures.
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014:
Detailed procedures for judicial appointments and transfers.
Veto Power: Any two members of the NJAC could veto a recommendation.
Striking Down the NJAC- Fourth Judges Case (2015): SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
Background and Context: The Supreme Court evaluated the constitutionality of the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the accompanying National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014.
Objective: These legislative measures aimed to replace the existing Collegium System—a mechanism wherein senior judges appoint judges—with a new framework involving representatives from the judiciary, executive, and civil society.
Legal Challenge: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), along with other petitioners, challenged the constitutional validity of the NJAC framework, contending that it undermined the independence of the judiciary, a core component of the Constitution's Basic Structure Doctrine.
Supreme Court Verdict:
On 16 October 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict with a 4:1 majority, declaring both the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void.
The NJAC compromised the independence of the judiciary, violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Parliament Hikes MPs Salary and 8th Pay Commission
News Highlights: The Central Government notified a 24\% hike in the salaries and pensions of Members of Parliament (MPs), effective April 1, 2023. This increase is based on the Cost Inflation Index, which has been used to calculate the adjustments in MPs' salary, daily allowances, and pension benefits.
Key Details of the Hike:
Salary Increase: Monthly salary raised from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.24 lakh.
Daily Allowance: Increased from ₹2,000 to ₹2,500.
Pension for Former MPs: Raised from ₹25,000 to ₹31,000. Additional pension increased from ₹2,000 to ₹2,500 per month for every year of service beyond five years.
Constitutional and Legal Basis: The salary, allowances, and pension of MPs are governed by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954. Article 106 of the Constitution empowers Parliament.
Traditional Legislative Procedure (Until 2018): Any salary hike required a bill in Parliament passed by a simple majority.
Reform Through Finance Act, 2018: Linked MP salaries to the Cost Inflation Index (CII), revising them automatically every five years without needing fresh legislation. The Union Budget may reflect salary revisions indirectly by allocating enhanced funds to the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs for MP remuneration.
Role of the President of India: Salary bills passed by Parliament are sent to the President for assent, after which they become law.
Pay Commissions: Expert bodies constituted to review and recommend revisions in the salary structure, allowances, and pensions of central government employees. The recommendations are generally accepted, in full or part, by the Union Cabinet.
8th Pay Commission: Approved by the Union Government, expected to benefit approximately 4.5 million central government employees and around 6.8 million pensioners. One of its primary objectives is to propose revisions to Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR), using data from the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW).
X Files a Case Against Union Government and Sahyog Portal
News Highlights: X (formerly Twitter) sued the Union Government in the Karnataka High Court over the SAHYOG portal.
X claims it's a censorship portal allowing arbitrary content takedown orders, bypassing Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The case questions if Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act can be used for information-blocking orders.
SAHYOG Portal:
Launched in October 2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
It aims to streamline the removal of unlawful online content and facilitate collaboration between government agencies and online intermediaries.
Legal Framework:
Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000: Empowers the government to block online content for sovereignty, security, and public order.