5. Amendment of the Constitution is highly required in order to modify and guide it to reflect the reality of changing circumstances. Keeping this in view, Suggest a few provisions which you feel that are desperately needed to incorporate. (10 M) (150 Words)
Article 368 of the Constitution mentions the procedure and amendment of the Constitution in simple and special majorities.
With the changing socio-cultural and techno-economic dynamics of the society, Indian Constitution needs a frequent revision from time to time either by omission or commission of certain provisions.
Few of the provisions that are needed to be incorporated:
a. The power to initiate the amendment to the Constitution lies with the parliament unlike the USA. Hence, the States should be given a place to initiate Constitutional amendment bills on the lines of Cooperative federalism.
b. Provision for Joint sitting of both the houses of parliament over the passage of
Constitutional amendment bill.
c. Judicial review to be extended to decide on the decision of the Lok
Sabha speaker in terms of money bill.
d. When the President withholds his assent to the bill, the reasons should be clearly mentioned to the State government.
e. The scope of judicial review should be limited and areas that are fully exempted must b clearly mentioned in the Constitution.
f. Educational requirements and granting financial powers to the panchayats that are authorizing them to levy, collect and appropriate taxes should be made a compulsory provision.
g. The Office of Profit should be clearly defined with an Article supporting it.
h. The Central Vigilance Commission should be given Constitutional status.
Hence, these are the provisions that are needed to be incorporated to meet the changing dynamics for vibrant and robust democracy.
6. While the Separation of Powers is a bedrock principle of the Indian Constitution, do you think, the collegium system and mysteries underlining its decision -making dilute the importance of the former’s case?
Give reasons for your answer (15 marks) (250 Words)
Article 50 of the Indian Constitution envisages the Separation of Judiciary
from the Executive. The Separation of powers and Independence of Judiciary is mentioned in the basic
structure of the constitution which cannot be abrogated by the legislature.
Collegium System: The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. The Chief justice is
appointed by the president after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary.
The Supreme Court has given a different interpretation of the word ‘consultation’ in the above provision.
In the First Judges case (1982), the Court held that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies exchange of views. But, in the Second Judges case (1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling and
changed the meaning of the word consultation to concurrence. Hence,
it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India is binding on the President in the matters of appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court.
Similarly, in the Third judges case (1998), the Court opined that the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief justice of India requires ‘consultation of plurality judges’. He should consult a collegium of four senior most judges of the Supreme Court.
The idea of the collegium system was an innovation by the judiciary to prevent, protect its independence
from the encroachment by legislature from its internal matters. It was, for
his reason, the National Judicial Appointments Commission bill (NJAC), 2015 was quashed citing judicial independence and later entered into the ‘memorandum of procedure’ to explain the criteria in the judges’ selection.
Despite these, there are certain loopholes in the collegium system which are contrary to the Separation
of Powers.
(a) Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
(b) Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it with an NJAC, 2015 was struck and raised concerns over the internal functioning of court matters.
(c) Not disclosing the facts furnished upon the transfers of judges, appointments of High Court judges to the Supreme Court has often been accused of nepotism.
(d) Public and other constitutional experts were often booked under Contempt of Court Act which is
arm-twisting and undemocratic. Ex: Charges against Prasanth Bhushan and Justice Karnan.
Hence, it is very important to strike a fine balance between the appointment and transfers through
the reformed collegium system as it is now the only practical way to guarantee the independence of the
judiciary as the Supreme Court has been assigned a very significant role in the Indian democratic political
system as the guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens and guardian of the Constitution.
Therefore, its independence becomes very essential for the effective discharge of the duties assigned to it.
