🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the March edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on May 07, 2025

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

How the judiciary maintains accountability?

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international Significance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

The recent comments by the Vice-President of India on the role of judges has caused much anxiety and is a matter of serious concern that needs to be analysed properly. It is a well-known fact that with power comes responsibility. The position of the Vice-President is second in the order of precedence in India and therefore, anybody holding such a post needs to be extremely cautious before speaking, as his views might send wrong signals to the people

Read about:

Organisational structure of the Supreme Court of India

Process of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court of India

Key takeaways:

• Recent remarks made by the Vice-President of India concerning the judiciary's role have sparked considerable unease and warrant a thorough and reasoned analysis. It's a widely acknowledged principle that great authority brings with it a proportionate responsibility.
• As the second-highest constitutional authority in India, the Vice-President holds a position of immense significance, and thus, any statements made in this capacity must be measured, as they can influence public perception.
• Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, responding to the Supreme Court's directives regarding timelines for Presidents and Governors to act on Bills passed by the legislature, criticized the judiciary by suggesting that it behaves like a "super parliament."
• He also asserted that judges are not subject to legal accountability and claimed that judicial directions to the President are inappropriate. However, the term "super parliament" lacks any constitutional relevance.
• Parliament, as the embodiment of the people's will, holds ultimate legislative authority under the framework of popular sovereignty. No institution, including the judiciary, has the right to supersede Parliament’s authority.
• To guard against any misuse of judicial independence, the framers of the Constitution carefully embedded all judicial powers within the Constitution itself. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), where it reiterated that while judicial powers originate from the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed through the principle of separation of powers.
• If judges act arbitrarily or exceed their constitutional boundaries, it would be a serious breach of Article 50, and the Parliament—where the people’s mandate rests—holds the authority to begin proceedings for the removal of such a judge.
• Regarding the Vice-President’s claim that courts cannot direct the President, it’s important to understand the President’s constitutional role. As per Articles 1 and 52, the President is the head of the Indian State, elected under Articles 54 and 55, and symbolizes the Republic of India.
• Additionally, Articles 53(1), 53(2), and 79 outline the President's roles as head of the Executive, the armed forces, and Parliament, respectively. However, the President's actions must align with the principles of popular sovereignty.
• The power to assent to B