CBSE Class 11 India Constitution Work Chapter 6: Judiciary NCERT Solutions

Solution: The independence of the judiciary is ensured through several constitutional provisions. Let's analyze each statement:

(i) Consultation with the Chief Justice in judicial appointments is a mechanism to ensure experienced input, contributing to independence.

(ii) Judges having a fixed tenure, meaning they are generally not removed before the age of retirement, provides security and prevents arbitrary dismissal, thus ensuring independence.

(iii) The transfer of a High Court judge to another High Court is a measure that can potentially be used to exert pressure, thus potentially compromising independence. Therefore, this statement is an 'odd one out' in the context of ensuring independence.

(iv) The Constitution limits Parliament's direct role in the appointment of judges, which is a key factor in maintaining judicial independence.

Based on this analysis, statements (iii) is the odd one out because it describes a situation that could potentially affect judicial independence negatively, unlike the other statements which describe measures to ensure it.

Solution: No, the independence of the judiciary does not mean it is unaccountable. It signifies that the judiciary can function without interference from other government organs (like the executive or legislature) and that judges can perform their duties without fear or favoritism. However, the judiciary remains accountable to the Constitution of India, to the people of India, and to the established democratic traditions. This accountability ensures that judicial decisions are just and in line with constitutional principles.

Solution: The Constitution of India incorporates several provisions to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, ensuring it can function impartially:

1. Appointment of Judges: While the President appoints judges, the process involves consultation with the judiciary itself, limiting direct political influence. Parliament has no direct say in the appointment process.
2. Fixed Tenure: Judges hold office until they reach the prescribed age of retirement. This fixed tenure provides security and prevents arbitrary removal, allowing them to perform their duties without fear.
3. Difficult Removal Procedure: Judges can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, which acts as a significant safeguard against arbitrary dismissal.
4. Protection of Salaries and Allowances: The salaries and allowances of judges are determined by law and are not subject to the approval of the legislature, preventing financial pressure. These are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
5. Judicial Powers: The judiciary has the power to penalize individuals for contempt of court, which helps in maintaining its authority and ensuring respect for its decisions.
6. Restriction on Discussion of Conduct: Except during impeachment proceedings, the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament, preventing politically motivated attacks on the judiciary.

Solution: Based on the news report:

1. What is the case about? The case is about the severe environmental pollution caused by Reliance Energy's thermal power plant in Dahanu, which has devastated the local agricultural and horticultural economy, including chikoo cultivation, fisheries, and forests. The farmers and environmentalists petitioned the court due to the plant's failure to install pollution control measures despite previous orders.
2. Who has been the beneficiary in the case? The primary beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's order are the farmers of the Dahanu area who grow chikoo fruit, as they are to receive compensation for the damages caused by the pollution. The environment of Dahanu also benefits from the potential for improved pollution control.
3. Who is the petitioner in the case? The petitioners in the case are the chikoo growers (farmers) from the Dahanu area, along with environmentalists, who approached the court against the pollution caused by Reliance's thermal power plant.
4. Visualize what would have been the different arguments put forward by the company. The company (Reliance Energy) might have argued:
   • That the pollution levels were within acceptable limits or that natural factors also contributed to the environmental degradation.
   • That they had made efforts to comply with regulations and that the delay in setting up the pollution control unit was due to technical or logistical challenges.
   • That the compensation demanded was excessive and not proportionate to the actual damages.
   • That the economic benefits of the power plant to the region (e.g., employment) should also be considered.
5. What arguments would the farmers have put forward? The farmers would have argued:
   • That the pollution from the thermal power plant directly caused significant crop failure (70% loss), destruction of fisheries, and thinning of forest cover, leading to economic ruin.
   • That the company failed to comply with previous orders from the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority and the Supreme Court to install pollution control measures, showing a disregard for environmental regulations and public welfare.
   • That their traditional livelihood and the ecological balance of the Dahanu region have been severely and irreparably damaged due to the company's negligence.
   • That the compensation of Rs. 300 crores is necessary to mitigate the damages suffered and to restore the environment to some extent.