Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
The Kerala Public Services Commission has approached the High Court to challenge prosecution sanction orders and criminal cases registered against its members and staff. Stemming from alleged procedural irregularities in the appointment of the Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division at the Kerala State Planning Board, this legal challenge brings to the forefront critical questions concerning the statutory immunity, functional autonomy, and accountability mechanisms governing independent constitutional bodies in India. The dispute underscores the delicate legal boundary between executive oversight of administrative appointments and the protection of constitutional functionaries from external coercion.
The Supreme Court has launched a rigorous inquiry into the Andhra Pradesh police regarding the failure to produce Sai Krishna before a magistrate, questioning unexplained delays in filing the First Information Report and the inexplicable disappearance of closed-circuit television footage from the Krishnalanka police station in Vijayawada. A three-judge Bench highlighted profound systemic concerns over custodial non-compliance, police accountability, and the safeguarding of personal liberty under Article 21, demanding comprehensive records in a sealed cover while monitoring ongoing proceedings before the High Court.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on an Allahabad High Court order that directed the personal recovery of ₹5 lakh from the Noida District Magistrate (DM) in relation to a detention case under the National Security Act (NSA). The High Court had imposed the penalty as compensation for the wrongful detention of an individual, citing procedural lapses. In the Supreme Court, senior counsel argued that the decision-making process for such detentions involves a multi-tiered administrative review, involving various officials and legal vetting, which makes it legally contentious to single out a specific civil servant for personal financial liability for an official act. This case brings into focus the delicate balance between judicial oversight of administrative actions and the protection of civil servants acting in the course of their official duties.