Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism

1. Why an independent judiciary: rule of law and its safeguards

Read the detailed note →

• Why it matters: disputes between people, groups and the government must be settled by a neutral body under the rule of law (the same law for rich and poor, and for every caste and gender). The judiciary protects rights and stops democracy turning into the rule of one person or group (Class 11, Judiciary).
• Class 7 calls it the 'watchdog'. It protects laws, interprets them, protects rights and guards the Constitution through judicial review. It also shields minorities from the 'dominance of the majority': the Dongria Kondh's Niyamgiri hills, and C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India (1979), where gender-biased Foreign Service rules were struck down. Class 8 places it inside checks and balances. Art. 50 (a Directive Principle) asks the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.
• Independence of the judiciary means three things. The other organs must not restrain it or interfere with its decisions, and judges must act without fear or favour. It does not mean judges answer to no one (see §12).
• Security of tenure of judges: judges serve until 65 (Supreme Court) or 62 (High Courts; raised from 60 by the 15th Amendment, 1963). Removal needs a special majority in Parliament (§5).
• Financial security of judges:
• Supreme Court judges' salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (Art. 112(3)(d)), so Parliament does not vote on them. High Court judges' salaries are charged on the state fund (Art. 202(3)(d)), but their pensions come from the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Pay and benefits cannot be cut after appointment (Arts. 125(2), 221(2)) except in a financial emergency (Art. 360(4)(b)).

• The Supreme Court's expenses are also charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (Art. 146(3)).

• Restriction on discussing judges' conduct in the legislature: Parliament (Art. 121) and state legislatures (Art. 211) cannot debate a judge's conduct except on a removal motion.

• Other safeguards: the contempt power (Arts. 129, 215) and the bar on practising law after retirement (Art. 124(7); Art. 220 for High Courts). Open question: jobs taken after retirement, such as Ranjan Gogoi's Rajya Sabha nomination (2020).

2. An integrated judiciary: the Supreme Court and High Courts

Read the detailed note →

• Integrated judiciary: one pyramid of courts. The Supreme Court is at the top, High Courts are below it and district and subordinate courts are at the base. It enforces both Union and state laws, unlike the separate federal and state courts of the USA. Class 11, Judiciary links it to having a single Constitution. Subordinate courts are covered in justice-delivery-tribunals.
• Supreme Court of India: the apex court and final court of appeal. It was inaugurated on 28 January 1950 and replaced the Federal Court (1937) and the Privy Council. Its motto is Yato Dharmastato Jayah ('where there is dharma, there is victory', from the Mahabharata).
• Number of judges: Art. 124(1) began with the CJI and 7 other judges. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956 raised this, most recently to 33 + CJI = 34 in 2019 (verify current). The Court sits in Delhi unless the CJI decides otherwise with the President's approval (Art. 130).
• Qualifications of Supreme Court judges (Art. 124(3)): an Indian citizen who has been a High Court judge for 5 years, a High Court advocate for 10 years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion.
• Chief Justice of India: by convention the senior-most judge. The CJI heads the collegium and is master of the roster (decides which bench hears which case). An acting CJI can be appointed under Art. 126. The current CJI is Justice Surya Kant (53rd, from 24 November 2025). Justice B.V. Nagarathna is due to become the first woman CJI in 2027 (verify current).
• Ad hoc judge (Art. 127): a High Court judge asked by the CJI, with the President's consent, to sit in the Supreme Court when there are too few judges for a quorum. Retired judges may also sit (Art. 128).
• High Court (Art. 214): there are 25, the newest being Andhra Pradesh (2019) (verify current). Judges retire at 62.
• Qualification: 10 years in judicial office or as a High Court advocate.

• Powers: writs under Art. 226 (for "any other purpose" too), superintendence over lower courts (Art. 227) and control of subordinate courts (Art. 235).

• Common High Court (Art. 231): one High Court for two or more states. Example: Gauhati serves Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Union territories are attached to High Courts under Art. 230.

• Retired judges sitting in High Courts (Art. 224A): the Chief Justice may ask a retired judge to sit, with the President's consent. Lok Prahari (2021) encouraged this to clear arrears. Additional and acting judges are appointed under Art. 224.

3. Appointing judges I: seniority, supersessions and the three Judges cases

Read the detailed note →

• Appointment of judges:
• Art. 124(2): the President appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting judges, and must consult the CJI for other judges.
• Art. 217(1): for High Court judges, the President consults the CJI, the Governor and the High Court Chief Justice. The legislature has no role.

• Class 11, Judiciary: appointment "has never been free from political controversy".

• Supersession of judges (breaking the rule that the senior-most judge becomes CJI):

• April 1973: A.N. Ray was made CJI over Shelat, Hegde and Grover a day after Kesavananda Bharati.

• January 1977: M.H. Beg was made CJI over H.R. Khanna, who had dissented in ADM Jabalpur. (NCERT: "1975"; correct: January 1977.)

• Committed judiciary: the 1970s idea that judges should share the ruling party's social philosophy. Critics saw it as a threat to independence. Since 1977 the senior-most judge has been appointed CJI.

• First Judges case, S.P. Gupta (1981): 'consultation' does not mean 'concurrence' (agreement). This gave the executive primacy.
• Second Judges case, SCAORA (1993, nine judges): the CJI's opinion, formed with two senior colleagues, has primacy. This created the collegium.
• Third Judges case (In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, under Art. 143):
• Supreme Court appointments: the CJI and the 4 senior-most judges.
• High Court appointments: the CJI and the 2 senior-most judges.

• If two members object, the name should not go forward.

• Collegium system: the government can return a name once. If the collegium sends it again, the government is bound. For High Courts, the High Court collegium starts the process. The file then passes through the state, the Governor, IB inputs, the Supreme Court collegium, the Law Ministry, the Prime Minister and finally the President.

• Transfer of High Court judges (Art. 222): the President transfers after consulting the CJI (in practice, the collegium). The judge's consent is not needed (Sankalchand Sheth, 1977, held consultation must be real).

4. Appointing judges II: the NJAC, the Fourth Judges case and collegium reform

Read the detailed note →

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC):
• Created by the 99th Amendment Act, 2014 (Arts. 124A-124C) and the NJAC Act 2014. Both came into force on 13 April 2015.
• Six members: the CJI (chair), the next two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons.
• The eminent persons were chosen by the PM, the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition (or of the largest opposition party). One had to be from the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities or women.

• Any two members could block a name.

• Fourth Judges case, SCAORA (16 October 2015): by 4:1 (Justice Chelameswar dissenting), the Court struck down both the amendment and the Act.

• Reason: judicial primacy in appointments is part of independence, and so of the basic structure (the core features that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy).

• Effect: the collegium returned, and the Court invited ideas for reform (December 2015 order).

• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): the government-judiciary rulebook for appointments. The 1999 MoP still applies. The revised draft has been stuck since 2016-17 over national-security vetoes, a secretariat and criteria (verify current).

• Friction points: the government sitting on names, even reiterated ones; picking some names from a list and holding back others; the timelines set in PLR Projects (2021) (verify current); ministers' attacks on the NJAC verdict (2022-23).
• Reforms so far: collegium resolutions have been published since October 2017. In January 2023 the collegium disclosed IB and R&AW objections. Diversity remains thin (Fathima Beevi became the first woman Supreme Court judge in 1989; verify current data).
• Core tension: independence against transparency and accountability.

5. Removing judges: Article 124(4), the Judges (Inquiry) Act and in-house discipline

Read the detailed note →

• Removal of judges (Art. 124(4)):
• Ground: only 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'.
• Vote: each House, in the same session, must pass an address by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
• The President then orders removal. The same rule applies to High Court judges (Art. 218).

• The Constitution does not call this "impeachment"; that word is used only for the President (Art. 61). Class 11, Judiciary: the executive appoints and the legislature removes, which keeps a balance.

• Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 (Parliament's law under Art. 124(5)) sets the steps in order: 1. Notice signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members. 2. The Speaker or Chairman admits or rejects it. 3. A three-member committee investigates: a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist. 4. 'Not guilty' ends the case. 'Guilty' lets the motion go to a vote.

• Justice V. Ramaswami removal motion:

• In 1991, 108 MPs signed the notice. In 1992 the Sawant committee found "wilful and gross misuse of office".

• The May 1993 Lok Sabha vote won two-thirds of those voting but failed the total-membership test because the Congress abstained.

• Later cases (NCERT's "only one case" is outdated):

• Soumitra Sen: the Rajya Sabha passed the motion (August 2011), and he resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.
• P.D. Dinakaran resigned during the inquiry (2011).
• The notice against CJI Dipak Misra was rejected at admission (2018).

• Justice Yashwant Varma: a committee was formed on 12 August 2025 and reported to the Speaker on 18 May 2026 (outcome: verify current).

• No judge has ever been removed.

• In-house procedure (adopted 1999, made public 2014): the CJI may set up a three-judge panel. If misconduct is found, the judge is advised to resign. If the judge refuses, judicial work is withdrawn and the President and PM are told. Critique: it has no statutory basis and is opaque.

6. Court of record and the contempt power

Read the detailed note →

• Court of record (Art. 129 for the Supreme Court; Art. 215 for High Courts): its judgments are kept as permanent records with evidentiary value, and it can punish contempt of itself.
• The Supreme Court can also punish contempt of lower courts (Delhi Judicial Service Association, 1991).

• It cannot use contempt to suspend a lawyer's licence (Supreme Court Bar Association, 1998).

• Contempt of court: a reasonable restriction on free speech (Art. 19(2)), governed by the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Class 11, Judiciary sees it as a shield against unfair criticism. Its student asks why one may criticise the PM but not judges.

• Civil contempt: wilfully disobeying a court's judgment, order or writ, or breaking an undertaking given to the court.
• Criminal contempt: publishing or doing anything that scandalises the court (lowers its authority), prejudices a case or obstructs justice.
• Punishment: up to 6 months' simple jail, a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. A sincere apology can end the case.
• Defences and limits: fair reporting; fair criticism of a decided case; and, since the 2006 amendment, truth in the public interest. A private person needs the Attorney General's or Solicitor General's consent to start criminal contempt in the Supreme Court. Cases must begin within one year.
• Cases: Arundhati Roy (2002, one day in jail); Justice C.S. Karnan (2017, first sitting High Court judge jailed); Prashant Bhushan (2020, ₹1 fine).
• Debate: the UK abolished 'scandalising the court' in 2013, but the Law Commission's 274th Report (2018) advised India to keep it. Against it: chilling effect on speech, and judges deciding cases about themselves.

7. Supreme Court jurisdiction I: original, writ and appellate

Read the detailed note →

• Original jurisdiction (Art. 131): only the Supreme Court can hear legal disputes between the Union and states, or among states. This makes it the umpire of federalism.
• Excluded: private parties, pre-Constitution treaties, and inter-state water disputes (Art. 262). So the Cauvery dispute came to the Court by appeal, decided in 2018.
• Examples: State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977); West Bengal v. Union of India (2024, suit over CBI cases held maintainable).

• Election disputes of the President and Vice-President are also heard here (Art. 71).

• Writ jurisdiction: power to issue the five writs (court orders to an authority to act or stop acting).

• Art. 32 is itself a fundamental right (Ambedkar's "heart and soul"). It can be suspended only under Art. 359.

• High Courts issue writs under Art. 226, for rights "and for any other purpose", so Art. 226 is wider. A person may go to either court.

• Appellate jurisdiction (the highest court of appeal):

• Art. 132: constitutional cases, on a High Court certificate (Art. 134A).
• Art. 133: civil cases with a substantial question of law (the 30th Amendment, 1972 removed the money test).

• Art. 134: criminal cases, e.g., when a High Court reverses an acquittal and gives a death sentence.

• Special leave petition (SLP) (Art. 136): discretionary leave to appeal against any judgment of any court or tribunal, except armed-forces tribunals (Art. 136(2)).

• Meant for "exceptional" cases (Pritam Singh, 1950), yet SLPs now crowd the docket.
• Hence the debate on a constitutional court versus a National Court of Appeal (Law Commission 229th Report, 2009).

8. Supreme Court jurisdiction II: advisory opinions, review, curative petitions and complete justice

Read the detailed note →

• Advisory jurisdiction (Art. 143): the President may refer a question of law or fact of public importance.
• Under Art. 143(1) the Court "may" answer. Under Art. 143(2) (pre-Constitution treaty disputes) it "shall" answer.
• The advice does not bind the government.

• Examples: Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), the Ram Janmabhoomi reference (declined, 1994), the Third Judges case (1998) and the Governors' assent reference (opinion of 20 November 2025: no fixed timelines and no 'deemed assent'; verify details).

• Constitution bench (Art. 145(3)): at least 5 judges, needed for a substantial question of constitutional interpretation and for Art. 143 references.

• Review petition (Art. 137): the Court re-checks its own judgment.
• It must be filed within 30 days and is allowed only for an error apparent on the record.

• Usually the same bench hears it, in chambers. Death-sentence reviews are heard in open court (Mohd. Arif, 2014).

• Curative petition (Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002): the last remedy after a review fails, to cure a gross miscarriage of justice.

• It needs a senior advocate's certificate and is heard by the 3 senior-most judges plus the original bench.

• It is rarely allowed (DMRC, 2024).

• Doctrine of precedent (Art. 141): law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts. The ratio (the reasoning needed for the decision) binds; obiter (side remarks) only persuades. The Court can overrule itself (Bengal Immunity, 1955). Class 11, Judiciary's Ecuador exercise contrasts India's system.

• Complete justice power (Art. 142): any order needed for "complete justice", enforceable across India.
• Uses: the Bhopal settlement, Ayodhya (2019), divorce on irretrievable breakdown (Shilpa Sailesh, 2023), the Chandigarh mayor's result (2024).
• Limit: it cannot override express laws (Prem Chand Garg, 1962).
• Art. 144: all civil and judicial authorities must act in aid of the Supreme Court.

9. Judicial review and the contest with Parliament

Read the detailed note →

• Judicial review: the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine a law or executive action and declare it void if it breaks the Constitution.
• It is not named in the Constitution. It flows from a written Constitution and Arts. 13, 32, 226 and 245-254.

• It comes from the USA (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) and is part of the basic structure.

• Grounds for striking down a law: violation of fundamental rights; breaking the federal division of powers (e.g., a Union law on a State List subject); and, for amendments, the basic structure.

• Review vs writ (Class 11, Judiciary): review cancels a law, while a writ orders an authority to act or stop.
• Due process: A.K. Gopalan (1950) read Art. 21 narrowly. Maneka Gandhi (1978) required any procedure to be "just, fair and reasonable".
• Executive powers brought under review: pardons (Kehar Singh, 1989), Art. 356 (S.R. Bommai, 1994), the Governor's discretion (Nabam Rebia, 2016).
• The contest over property and amendments:
• Shankari Prasad (1951) → Golaknath (1967) → 24th and 25th Amendments (1971) → Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973). The Court held that the basic structure cannot be amended, that property is not part of it, and that the Court decides what is basic.
• Then the Emergency era: ADM Jabalpur (1976) and the 42nd Amendment (1976), followed by Minerva Mills (1980).

• The 44th Amendment (1978, in force 1979) removed property from the fundamental rights.

• Open frontiers:

• Legislative privileges: Keshav Singh (1965); Sita Soren (2024, bribes for votes are not protected).
• Anti-defection: Kihoto Hollohan (1992, the Speaker's decisions are reviewable).
• Courts ordering floor tests.
• Details are in amendment-basic-structure, emergency-1975 and political-parties.

10. Judicial activism and the rise of PIL

Read the detailed note →

• Judicial activism: courts actively using their power to protect rights and make the government answerable, going beyond the disputes brought by affected parties. It grew after the Emergency under Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer.
• Locus standi (the right to bring a case): traditionally only the person harmed could sue. From about 1979 the Court let public-spirited people sue for those who cannot. S.P. Gupta (1981) confirmed this.
• Public interest litigation (PIL): a case under Art. 32 or Art. 226 for a public cause, also called social action litigation. It is the chief tool of activism.
• Early PILs:
• Hussainara Khatoon case (1979): an advocate's petition on Bihar undertrials jailed longer than their possible sentence. Speedy trial was held part of Art. 21, and thousands were freed.
• Sunil Batra case (1980): a Tihar prisoner's note to Justice Krishna Iyer on torture was turned into a petition, which advanced prisoners' rights.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (1984): bonded labour in Haryana's quarries. Bhagwati held that the poor need a non-adversarial approach.

• Also Khatri (the Bhagalpur blindings) and PUDR (1982, Asiad workers).

• Epistolary jurisdiction: treating letters or postcards as writ petitions. (NCERT: the practice was abandoned; now: letters are screened under the Supreme Court's PIL guidelines, 1988.)

• Suo motu cognizance: a court taking up a matter on its own from news reports or letters, e.g., prison conditions, migrant workers (2020) and the RG Kar case (2024).
• Amicus curiae ('friend of the court'): a lawyer appointed to assist the court, not representing any side.
• Misuse and curbs: 'private interest litigation' and publicity-seeking petitions. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) barred busybodies, and Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) laid down guidelines and costs.

11. PIL in action and the overreach debate

Read the detailed note →

• Art. 21 expanded: dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981), livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), free legal aid (M.H. Hoskot, 1978), and education (Unni Krishnan, 1993). Education led to the 86th Amendment, 2002 (Art. 21A) and the RTE Act 2009, the RTE story in Class 8.

• Other gains: food (PUCL, 2001 onward); workplace harassment (Vishaka, 1997, guidelines later enacted as the POSH Act 2013); candidates' affidavits on assets and criminal record (ADR, 2002).

• M.C. Mehta cases: environmental PILs on the oleum gas leak, Ganga pollution, the Taj Trapezium and Delhi's air.

• Absolute liability (M.C. Mehta, 1987): a firm doing hazardous work is fully liable for the harm it causes. It gets none of the exceptions allowed under strict liability. Compensation grows with the firm's size.
• Delhi CNG case: the July 1998 order moved Delhi's buses to CNG. It was enforced in 2001-02 despite a joint Centre-Delhi plea (Class 11, Judiciary exercise). The Dahanu exercise is about a ₹300 crore bank guarantee from a polluting power plant (2005).
• Continuing mandamus: keeping a case open and giving periodic orders to supervise an agency. Vineet Narain (1997) supervised the CBI's hawala probe and led to the CVC Act 2003.
• Judicial overreach: the charge that courts take over executive or legislative work. Examples cited: the highway liquor ban (2016) and the anthem in cinemas (2016). Class 11, Judiciary: activism overburdens courts and blurs the lines between organs. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar warned against a "super-legislature".
• Judicial restraint: courts defer to elected branches on policy and strike down laws only when clearly unconstitutional (Aravali Golf Club, 2008; BALCO, 2002).
• Counter-view: courts fill gaps left by government inaction.

12. Transparency and accountability of the judiciary

Read the detailed note →

• Judicial accountability: independence "does not imply arbitrariness" (Class 11, Judiciary). Class 8 asks how the judiciary's own actions are reviewed.
• Internal checks: appeals, review, larger benches and reasoned public judgments.
• External checks: removal (§5), Parliament's laws on the courts' size and jurisdiction, and RTI.

• Codes of conduct: the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) and the Bangalore Principles (2002).

• Subhash Chandra Agarwal case (13 November 2019, five judges): the CJI's office is a public authority under the RTI Act. Disclosure is balanced against privacy and independence, so collegium deliberations can be withheld. In April 2025 the full court decided to publish judges' assets (verify current).

• Master of the roster: the CJI's power to form benches and give out cases.
• The four senior judges' press conference (12 January 2018) questioned how cases were allocated.
• The power was affirmed in Asok Pande (April 2018) and Shanti Bhushan (July 2018).

• Rosters are now published.

• Live-streaming of court proceedings: allowed in principle in Swapnil Tripathi (2018). Supreme Court constitution-bench hearings have streamed since September 2022.

• Sealed cover jurisprudence: courts taking government information in sealed envelopes that the other side cannot see. It was criticised in Madhyamam Broadcasting (2023) as unfair to the other side, and refused in the One Rank One Pension case (2023).
• Recusal: a judge stepping away from a case because of a conflict of interest. There are no codified rules, so the judge concerned decides (e.g., Justice U.U. Lalit left the Ayodhya bench in 2019).

---

Exam angles

Prelims — high-yield facts and traps

• Articles:
• Supreme Court: Art. 124 (setting up, appointment, removal), 124(3) qualifications, 125 salaries, 126 acting CJI, 127 ad hoc judges, 128 retired judges, 129 court of record, 130 seat.
• Jurisdiction: Art. 131 original, 132-134A appeals, 136 SLP, 137 review, 139A transfer of cases, 141 precedent, 142 complete justice, 143 advisory, 144 aid to the Court, 145(3) constitution bench.
• High Courts: Art. 214, 215, 217, 222 transfer, 224/224A, 226 writs, 227 superintendence, 231 common High Court.

• Arts. 121/211 bar legislatures from discussing judges' conduct.

• Judges cases: S.P. Gupta 1981 (consultation ≠ concurrence); SCAORA 1993 (CJI primacy); Special Reference 1998 (CJI + 4 / CJI + 2); NJAC case 2015 (99th Amendment struck down, 4:1).

• NJAC composition: CJI, 2 senior judges, Law Minister and 2 eminent persons.
• Supersessions: A.N. Ray 1973; M.H. Beg in January 1977 (NCERT's "1975" is a trap).
• Removal: 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'; special majority in each House in the same session; notice by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs; committee of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a jurist. No judge has ever been removed. Ramaswami failed through abstention (1993); Soumitra Sen cleared only the Rajya Sabha (2011).
• Contempt: civil vs criminal; maximum 6 months and ₹2,000; truth as a defence since 2006.
• Jurisdiction traps: Art. 131 excludes private parties and water disputes; Art. 143 advice is optional to give (except 143(2)) and not binding; review (30 days, error apparent) vs curative (Rupa Ashok Hurra, 2002); SLP excludes armed-forces tribunals; Art. 226 is wider than Art. 32.
• Numbers: retirement 65/62 (15th Amendment, 1963); Supreme Court strength 34 (2019); 25 High Courts; Gauhati High Court serves four states.
• Case-principle pairs: Hussainara 1979 (speedy trial); Sunil Batra 1980 (letter petition); Bandhua Mukti Morcha 1984; M.C. Mehta 1987 (absolute liability); Vishaka 1997; Vineet Narain 1997 (continuing mandamus); Swapnil Tripathi 2018; Subhash Chandra Agarwal 2019; Madhyamam 2023.
• FALSE statements: "Judicial review is expressly mentioned in the Constitution"; "Parliament has a role in appointing judges"; "A High Court judge cannot be transferred".

Mains — GS-II themes

1. Collegium vs NJAC: judicial primacy as a guarantee of independence, against transparency, accountability and diversity; the stalled MoP; executive delays used as pressure.
2. Judicial activism, overreach and restraint: separation of powers, democratic legitimacy, courts' capacity; Art. 142 as a last resort or an unchecked power.
3. Judicial accountability: why removal has never succeeded; the opaque in-house procedure; lessons from the Varma case; asset disclosure and RTI.
4. Contempt of court and free speech: should 'scandalising the court' survive in a democracy?
5. Judiciary-legislature relations: basic structure as a limit on majorities; privileges, anti-defection and Governors' assent as current flashpoints.
6. The Supreme Court's docket: too many SLPs vs its constitutional role; backlog of constitution-bench cases; regional benches or a National Court of Appeal.
7. PIL as a tool of social justice, and its dilution by frivolous petitions.

Current-affairs hooks

• CJI succession and collegium recommendations: withheld or split names, High Court vacancies, diversity data; Justice Nagarathna as CJI (2027).
• The Justice Yashwant Varma inquiry report and any parliamentary motion (verify current).
• Art. 143 references (Governors' assent, 2025), major Art. 142 orders, Art. 131 Centre-state suits.
• Contempt cases against public figures or governments; sealed-cover and live-streaming practice.
• Transparency moves: published assets, translation and AI tools, the Supreme Court's annual reports.