Judiciary

The odd ones out (the incorrect statements regarding independence) are:

• (iii) Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court. (False: Judges can be transferred).
• (iv) Parliament has no say in the appointment of judges. (False: While the executive appoints judges, the Parliament has the power of removal via impeachment, so it does have a say in the judiciary’s tenure).

No. Independence of the judiciary does not mean absence of accountability.
It means the judiciary can function without fear or interference from the legislature or executive. However, it is accountable to the Constitution of India, the democratic traditions, and the people of the country. Judges can be removed by Parliament through impeachment for proven misbehavior, ensuring they remain answerable to the rule of law.

The Constitution ensures independence through:

• Appointment: Judges are appointed by the President (Executive) but only on the advice of the Chief Justice (Judiciary), minimizing political influence.
• Fixed Tenure: Judges have a fixed tenure until retirement age and cannot be removed arbitrarily.
• Difficult Removal: Removal requires a special majority in both houses of Parliament (Impeachment).
• Financial Security: Salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and cannot be voted upon/reduced by Parliament.
• Immunity: The conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament (except during impeachment).

• What is the case about? It is about environmental pollution caused by Reliance’s thermal power plant affecting the livelihood of Chikoo farmers in Dahanu.
• Beneficiary: The farmers (chikoo growers) of Dahanu.
• Petitioner: The Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (and the chikoo growers).
• Arguments by Company: “We are providing essential electricity for development. Pollution control units are expensive and time-consuming to install. We need more time.”
• Arguments by Farmers: “Our livelihood depends on this land. The fly ash has destroyed our crops, groundwater, and fisheries. The company violated environmental norms for over a decade. Compensation is our right.”

• Governments involved: Central Government (Union Ministry of Petroleum) and State Government (Delhi Govt).
• Role of Supreme Court: The SC acted as a monitor and enforcer of environmental rights. It directed the conversion to CNG to protect the Right to Life (clean air) of citizens.
• Working of Judiciary/Executive: The Judiciary (SC) is directing policy (Judicial Activism) because the Executive failed to curb pollution. The Executive (Centre/State) is coordinating to implement or modify these orders.
• Policy Issues involved:
  – Legislation: Pollution norms (Euro-II standards).
  – Implementation: Converting public transport to CNG, managing fuel supply.
  – Interpretation: Does “Right to Life” include “Right to Clean Air”? (Yes).

Difference:
In Ecuador, judges are not bound by previous rulings (No Judicial Precedent). A judge can rule differently in similar cases without explanation.
Indian System: India follows the principle of Stare Decisis (Judicial Precedent).
Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. This ensures consistency, certainty, and fairness in the law. Lower courts cannot rule against the precedents set by higher courts.

[Image of Supreme Court of India Jurisdiction Chart]

• Advisory Jurisdiction: “The government wanted to know if it can pass a law about the citizenship status of residents of Pakistan-occupied areas…” (President seeking SC opinion).
• Original Jurisdiction: “In order to resolve the dispute about river Cauvery the government of Tamil Nadu wants to approach the court.” (Dispute between States).
• Appellate Jurisdiction: “Court rejected the appeal by people against the eviction from the dam site.” (Appeal against lower court order).

[Image of Public Interest Litigation concept illustration]
PIL helps the poor by removing the barrier of Locus Standi.
Normally, only the aggrieved person can approach the court. However, the poor often lack money or literacy to do so. Under PIL, any public-spirited citizen or NGO can file a petition on behalf of the poor. The courts can even treat a simple letter/postcard as a writ petition, making justice accessible and inexpensive for the marginalized (e.g., cases on bonded labor, prisoners’ rights).

Yes, it often leads to conflict.
Reason: Judicial activism involves the judiciary intervening in areas traditionally belonging to the Executive (like pollution control, school admissions, or bus fuels).
The Executive may feel the Judiciary is overstepping its constitutional mandate (“Judicial Overreach”) and disrupting governance. For example, when the court orders the closure of industries to protect the environment, the Executive faces the immediate problem of unemployment and economic loss, leading to tension between the two organs.

Relation: Judicial activism is the primary tool courts use to actively protect rights when the state fails. It allows courts to interpret rights liberally.
Expansion of Scope: Yes, it has massively expanded the scope, especially of Article 21 (Right to Life).
Through activism/PILs, the courts have declared that “Right to Life” is not just mere animal existence but includes:

• Right to Clean Environment.
• Right to Livelihood.
• Right to Privacy.
• Right to Food.
• Right to Education.