UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2 : Questions on Freedom of speech and information and process of High Court judges’ appointment (Week 69)

QUESTION 2

How does the Supreme Court ruling highlight the process of High Court judges’ appointment?

General points on the structure of the answers

Introduction

— The introduction of the answer is essential and should be restricted to 3-5 lines. Remember, a one-liner is not a standard introduction.

— It may consist of basic information by giving some definitions from the trusted source and authentic facts.

Body

— It is the central part of the answer and one should understand the demand of the question to provide rich content.

— The answer must be preferably written as a mix of points and short paragraphs rather than using long paragraphs or just points.

— Using facts from authentic government sources makes your answer more comprehensive. Analysis is important based on the demand of the question, but do not over analyse.

QUESTION 1: ‘The recent case against digital non-profit platform in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information’. Do you agree?

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— Wikipedia is the go-to resource for anyone looking for basic information on any topic. It is one of the major global initiatives promoting access to knowledge and has become an integral part of our daily life.

— Wikipedia’s survival as one of the longest-running non-profit platforms, founded entirely by beginners with no academic or knowledge production credentials, is due to a single guiding principle that its editors adhere to: neutrality.

— When there is contradicting information, a hierarchy of sources is used to determine which is the most reputable. On pages that require interpretation and contestation, editors go to the back end edit pages to try to resolve their differences, again, not through rhetoric or polemics but by weighing sources.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in the body of your answer:

What is the case?

— In a recent Delhi High Court case, news agency Asia News International (ANI) complained that Wikipedia pages about ANI carried “false and misleading” content. The edits on the Indian English language Wikipedia page characterised ANI as having served as a “propaganda tool for the incumbent government”.

— When ANI attempted to change that information, other editors questioned their self-representation and reinforced their story, citing secondary sources to back up their claims. Justice Navin Chawla has ordered Wikipedia to reveal the identities of those who allegedly made defamatory additions to the ANI Page so that ANI can pursue legal action against them. When Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia, failed to produce requested material, Justice Chawla issued a contempt notice, reportedly stating, “If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India…” We will petition the government to prohibit your website.”

— An edit to Wikipedia can be considered vandalism, but it is not limited to specific acts. Edits are collective. They are created by communities with rules for citation, sourcing, and presentation.

— The court’s decision to hold individual members accountable and punish a group of volunteers for releasing private information appears to be a violation of free speech and information.

Conclusion:

— It is not a place for creating original knowledge. Everything written there must be substantiated by publicly available knowledge, which has been published elsewhere.

— The lawsuit and the judgement both appear to overlook the reality that Wikipedia is not a platform, website, or app. It is a movement that believes that information should be freely available and that there is room for discourse and conversation in a world that is becoming increasingly polarised and restricting the ideals of free speech and expression.

(Source: Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information by Nishant Shah)

Points to Ponder

What is Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

What is “false and misleading” content?

Related Previous Year Questions

What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (2014)

Whether the Supreme Court Judgment (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (2018)

QUESTION 2: How does the Supreme Court ruling highlight the process of High Court judges’ appointment?

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The Supreme Court has directed the Himachal Pradesh High Court collegium to consider again the names of two judicial officers it had first recommended for elevation to the Bench 21 months ago. The unusual direction came after the affected individuals moved the Supreme Court against the HC collegium’s decision to recommend two other names for judgeship earlier this year.

— The Supreme Court has in the past placed strict limits on when it can review decisions at HCs relating to the appointments of judges, or direct them to reconsider.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in the body of your answer:

What is the procedure for appointing judges of High Courts (HC)?

— The collegium system of appointment (and transfer) of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts was laid down by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (1993), commonly known as the Second Judges Case.

— The ruling made the recommendations of the SC collegium binding on the Centre, and gave the power to appoint and transfer judges of the higher judiciary to the judiciary. Under the collegium system, judges choose judges — and while the government can delay their appointments, it cannot reject the collegium’s choice.

— In 1998, in response to a series of questions from then President K R Narayanan, the SC clarified how the collegium system would function. (Third Judges Case)

— The court said that collegiums for HC appointments would include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the two seniormost judges of the Supreme Court. This collegium would be required to consult the “Chief Justice and senior judges” of the HC concerned, the “seniormost” SC judge from that HC, as well as any SC judges who were “knowledgeable” about that HC.

— The court further specified the limited grounds on which a suggestion could be challenged:

(i) If there was lack of “effective consultation” with any of these individuals or organisations.

(ii) If the applicant in question was not “eligible” to be a judge, the qualifications are outlined in Articles 217 (High Court) and 124 (Supreme Court) of the Constitution.

— Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Third Judges Case, the national government and the Supreme Court signed a Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) in 1998 that described the entire procedure of appointing HC judges.

— As a part of this process, the Chief Justice of the HC must consult two other seniormost judges at the HC — together forming the High Court collegium — and send their recommendations, with reasons, to the Chief Minister, the Governor, and the CJI.

— The Governor, based on the advice of the Chief Minister, will send the proposal to the Minister of Law and Justice at the Centre, who will conduct a background check and send the entire material to the CJI, who will consider it with the rest of the SC collegium.

Conclusion:

— The Supreme Court initially determined whether the case fell within the narrow scope of its consideration of appointment recommendations. The court found that this case was restricted to whether there was “effective consultation” after the SC collegium’s January 4 determination, and had “nothing to do with the merits’ or the suitability’ of the officers in question” based on the Second and Third Judges’ cases.

— The second question was whether the HC Chief Justice’s letter (dated March 6) could be considered “effective consultation”. The court ruled that despite the SC collegium’s January 4 resolution addressing solely the HC Chief Justice, the language does not allow for the Chief Justice to act independently on recommendations or even reconsideration, for elevation to the High Court Bench”.

(Source: ‘Effective consultation’: How SC ruling underlines process of HC judges’ appointment by Ajoy Sinha Karpuram)

Points to Ponder

Read about Supreme Court

How are judges of the Supreme Court appointed?

Power of Supreme Court

Writ Provision (Article 32)

Related Previous Year Questions

Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India. (2023)

Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)

Previous Mains Answer Practice

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 67)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 68)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 68)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 67)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 69)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 68)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t2vuY6fvTU?si=zxWmGfIBfQdCflqS