CBSE Class 11 Political Science Chapter 6: Judiciary NCERT Solutions

Solution: The independence of the judiciary is ensured through several constitutional provisions and practices. Let's analyze the given statements:

(i) The consultation of the Chief Justice in appointing other judges is a mechanism to ensure the quality and suitability of judges, contributing to independence.

(ii) Judges have a fixed tenure and are generally not removed before the age of retirement, which protects them from arbitrary dismissal and allows them to function without fear.

(iii) The statement that a judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court is incorrect. Judges can be transferred, although this process is subject to certain norms to prevent vindictiveness.

(iv) Parliament indeed has a say in the appointment of judges through the process of impeachment, but it does not have a direct role in the day-to-day appointment process, which is primarily managed by the executive and the judiciary itself. However, the statement implies a complete lack of say, which is not entirely accurate regarding oversight.

Considering the options, statements (iii) and (iv) are the ones that deviate from the established principles or are factually questionable regarding the absolute lack of say or transferability. Statement (iii) is factually incorrect as transfers do happen. Statement (iv) is debatable as Parliament has a role in impeachment, but the primary appointment process is insulated. However, if we interpret 'say' as direct involvement in selection, then (iv) might be seen as supporting independence. The source material suggests (i) and (iii) are odd ones out. Let's re-evaluate based on typical understanding of judicial independence:

Measures ensuring independence include: fixed tenure (ii), protection from arbitrary removal, independent appointment process (where Parliament has limited direct say in selection, making (iv) a supporting point for independence), and financial autonomy. Statement (iii) about non-transferability is not a universal rule for independence and can be seen as a restriction rather than a guarantee of independence, especially if transfers are used vindictively. Therefore, (iii) is an odd one out. Statement (i) is a mechanism for ensuring quality and independence. Statement (ii) directly ensures independence. Statement (iv) supports independence by limiting direct political interference in selection. Thus, (iii) stands out as not directly contributing to independence in the same way as (ii) and (iv), and it is also factually inaccurate as a general rule.

Answer: Statements (iii) and (iv) are the odd ones out. Statement (iii) is incorrect as judges can be transferred. Statement (iv) is partially true in the sense that Parliament doesn't directly appoint, but it has a role in impeachment, making the absolute statement 'no say' debatable. However, the core idea of limiting direct parliamentary appointment is to ensure independence.

Solution: The independence of the judiciary does not imply that it is unaccountable. Instead, it means that the judiciary is free from the control and interference of other organs of the government, such as the executive and the legislature. This freedom allows judges to perform their duties impartially, without fear or favouritism. However, the judiciary remains accountable to the Constitution of India, to the people of India, and to the established democratic traditions. Its actions and decisions are subject to constitutional review, and it must uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

Solution: The Constitution of India incorporates several provisions to ensure the independence of the judiciary, allowing it to function without fear or favour. These provisions are crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights:

1. Security of Tenure: Judges hold office until they reach the age of retirement (65 for Supreme Court, 62 for High Courts). They can only be removed through a difficult impeachment process, which requires a special majority in Parliament, thus protecting them from arbitrary dismissal.
2. Fixed Service Conditions: The salaries and allowances of judges are determined by the Constitution and cannot be altered to their disadvantage after their appointment. These are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, meaning they are not subject to a vote by the legislature.
3. Parliament's Limited Role in Appointments: While the executive (President) appoints judges, the process involves consultation with the judiciary itself (Chief Justice of India and senior judges), insulating it from direct political interference in the selection process.
4. Prohibition on Discussion of Conduct: Except during impeachment proceedings, the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament. This prevents politically motivated debates that could undermine judicial authority.
5. Power to Punish for Contempt: The judiciary has the power to punish individuals for contempt of court, which includes actions that undermine its authority or disobey its orders. This power helps in enforcing its decisions and maintaining its dignity.
6. Separation of Powers: Although not strictly enforced in a rigid manner, the principle of separation of powers ensures that the judiciary functions as an independent organ, distinct from the executive and legislature.

Solution: Based on the news report, here are the identified aspects:

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, particularly the chikoo fruit cultivation, fisheries, and forests. The farmers and environmentalists petitioned the court against the ongoing pollution and the failure to install pollution control measures.

2. Who has been the beneficiary in the case? The primary beneficiaries in this case are the farmers of the Dahanu area who grow chikoo fruit, as well as the local environment and ecosystem, which have suffered due to the pollution. The Supreme Court's order for compensation aims to provide relief to these affected parties.

3. Who is the petitioner in the case? The petitioners in the case are the chikoo growers (farmers) from the Dahanu area, supported by environmentalists, who approached the court to seek redressal against the pollution caused by the thermal power plant.

4. Visualize what would have been the different arguments put forward by the company (Reliance Energy). The company might have argued:

• That the pollution levels were within permissible limits or that the environmental impact was exaggerated.
• That the installation of pollution control measures faced technical or logistical challenges, or that they had submitted plans for compliance.
• That the economic downturn in the region was due to multiple factors, not solely their power plant.
• That the compensation demanded was excessive and disproportionate to the actual damage caused.
• That they had acquired the plant recently and were in the process of rectifying past issues.

5. What arguments would the farmers have put forward? The farmers would have argued:

• That the fly ash and emissions from the power plant directly caused crop failure, damaged fisheries, and thinned forest cover, leading to economic ruin.
• That their livelihood, which depended on agriculture and horticulture, was destroyed due to the pollution.
• That despite previous orders from the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority and even the Supreme Court, the company had failed to install necessary pollution control equipment for years.
• That the company's actions violated their right to a healthy environment and livelihood.
• That the compensation sought was necessary to restore their losses and ensure future environmental protection.