What to Read in Indian Express Editorial (Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1 : Court Must Visit NJAC

Context: Justice Varma case

 

Historical Context and Constitutional Framework

• Article 124 of the Constitution:
  1. It establishes the Supreme Court and outlines the process for appointing judges.
  2. Key Provision: The President appoints judges after "consultation" with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
  3. Rejected Proposal: The Constituent Assembly dismissed substituting consultation with concurrence to avoid granting the CJI unilateral veto power (as argued by Dr. Ambedkar).
• Early Functioning
  1. Smooth operation for two decades post-Independence with judges of high calibre.
  2. First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta Case, 1981): Supreme Court ruled consultation does not equate to concurrence. Thus, preserving executive authority in appointments.

 

Shift to the Collegium System: Second Judges Case (1990s)

• The Supreme Court reinterpreted consultation as concurrence, transferring appointment power to the judiciary.
• Collegium System Introduced
  1. A body of the CJI and four senior-most judges proposes judicial appointments.
  2. Criticism: Not constitutionally mandated, leading to accusations of judicial overreach.

 

NJAC Amendment and Judicial Response

• Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014
  1. Created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
     • Composition: CJI, two senior SC judges, Union Law Minister, two eminent persons.
     • Objective: To balance judicial and executive roles in appointments.
  2. Political Consensus: Passed unanimously in Parliament (except Ram Jethmalani) and ratified by 16 states.
• Supreme Court Strikes Down NJAC (2015)
  1. 4:1 Majority Judgment: Declared NJAC unconstitutional under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
     • Reasoning: Inclusion of non-judicial members (Law Minister, eminent persons) threatened judicial independence.
  2. Dissenting View: Justice Chelameswar highlighted collegium's flaws and supported NJAC as a reform.

 

Criticisms of the Collegium System

• Lack of Transparency and Accountability
  1. Justice Chelameswar's Dissent: Criticized trade-offs and dubious appointments within the collegium.
  2. Justice Ruma Pal's Remarks: Labelled the system a best-kept secret, fostering sycophancy and lobbying.
• Judicial Self-Interest: Justice Kurian Joseph concurred with the majority but acknowledged the collegium's trust deficit and opacity.
• Regret from the Bench: Justice Kurian Joseph publicly expressed regret for striking down NJAC in 2020, citing the collegium's poor performance post-2015.

 

Conclusion and Way Forward

• Missed Opportunity: NJAC represented bipartisan consensus but was invalidated despite systemic flaws in the collegium.
• Call for Reconsideration: A larger Supreme Court bench should revisit the NJAC verdict, similar to how the Second Judges Case overturned S.P. Gupta.
• Need for Reform: Address collegium's opacity, reduce judicial overreach, and restore balanced stakeholder involvement in appointments.

Editorial 2 : After the Chennai Conclave

Context: Centre-State relations

 

Federal Tensions: Historical Context

• NTR’s Protest and Indira Gandhi’s Dismissal
  1. 1984 Dismissal of NTR’s Government: Highlighted as a pivotal moment in federal discord, where Indira Gandhi’s central government dismissed the Andhra Pradesh government, sparking nationwide protests.
  2. Legacy of NTR: N. T. Rama Rao was the founder of Telugu Desam Party (TDP. He framed the "Centre as a myth" to counter New Delhi’s dominance, positioning states as equal partners.
• Legacy of State-Centric Leaders
  1. Jyoti Basu (West Bengal) and NTR (Andhra Pradesh): Advocated for state autonomy, contrasting with their successors (Mamata Banerjee, Chandrababu Naidu) who skipped the Chennai conclave.
  2. Historical Precedent: The 1957 dismissal of Kerala’s communist government under EMS Namboodiripad by PM Nehru marked the beginning of central overreach.

 

Chennai Conclave and Its Implications

• Agenda and Absences
  1. Limited Focus: Protested BJP’s delimitation proposal favouring Hindi-speaking states.
  2. Criticism of Absentees: Naidu (TDP) and Banerjee (TMC) criticized for ignoring the conclave despite their parties’ historical advocacy for state rights.
• Call for Expanded Agenda
  1. Broader Federal Issues: Suggested inclusion of institutional erosion (e.g. Planning Commission’s abolition, sidelining National Development Council).
  2. Hyderabad Follow-Up: Proposed reconvening to address delimitation, language disputes, and Union-state power dynamics.

 

Institutional Erosion and Historical Precedents

• Commissions on Federalism
  1. Rajamannar Committee (1969): Examined Centre-state relations amid Congress’s political decline.
  2. Sarkaria Commission (1983): Focused on governors’ role, critiqued for partisan actions (e.g. in Tamil Nadu).
• Political Misuse of Role of Governors: Governors often act as central agents, undermining state autonomy (notably in Chennai).

 

Contemporary Challenges and Regional Disparities

• PM Modi’s Centralizing Policies
  1. Weakening States: Scrapping Planning Commission, avoiding National Development Council meetings.
  2. Regional Bias: Southern states feel marginalized despite Gujarat-based leadership of Modi-Shah.
• Southern States’ Grievances
  1. Underrepresentation: Southern leaders in Union government lack political influence in their home states.
  2. Cultural-Administrative Divide: Delhi’s perceived Hindi heartland focus amplifies regional alienation (e.g. shabby treatment of PV Narasimha Rao).

 

Proposed Reforms and Solutions

• Restructuring Uttar Pradesh
  1. Lok Sabha Seat Cap: Limit states to 10% of total seats, requiring UP’s bifurcation.
  2. State Legislature Expansion: Prioritize increasing state assembly seats over Lok Sabha for better grassroots representation.
• Empowering Local Governance: Constitutional framework exists, but states rarely devolve power effectively to panchayats and municipalities.
• Constitutional vs. Civilizational Identity: Hindutva ideology’s emphasis on Bharat as a civilizational entity challenges the constitutional definition of India as a Union of States.

 

Conclusion and Way Forward

• Chennai Conclave provided a platform to revive federal debates, though it was limited by absent key leaders.
• Form a high-powered committee led by retired SC judge to review past commissions’ (Rajamannar Committee, Sarkaria Commission) recommendations.
• Address delimitation, language policies, and governors’ roles.
• Reaffirm constitutional federalism to counter unitary and majoritarian tendencies.