“Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike...” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability 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 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.
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.
On September 27, 2026, the Supreme Court engaged in crucial hearings regarding legal challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. In a notable divergence of administrative stances, the Andhra Pradesh government submitted an affidavit stating it played no role in the enactment of the central legislation and maintained that it has not engaged in any discriminatory practices against transgender persons. Conversely, the Uttarakhand government defended the Act, asserting that the existing framework is beneficial for the community and sufficient to address their welfare needs. This judicial discourse highlights the complex interplay between central legislative mandates, state-level implementation, and the overarching constitutional protections for vulnerable groups.