Vice-President questions involvement of Chief Justice in executive appointments
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 3)
|
Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity |
|
Context |
|
Arguments in Favour of the Chief Justice’s Role in CBI Director’s Appointment
-
Ensures Judicial Oversight: The Chief Justice’s involvement prevents arbitrary executive decisions, ensuring fairness in key appointments.
-
Checks and Balances: This maintains a balance of power between the executive and judiciary, preventing excessive government control over investigative agencies.
-
Protects Investigative Independence: A judicial presence safeguards CBI from political influence, ensuring impartial investigations.
-
Precedent-Based System: The practice was introduced following judicial intervention to uphold transparency and fairness.
-
Democratic Safeguard: In a democracy, multi-institutional participation prevents any one branch from overpowering others.
Arguments Against the Chief Justice’s Role in CBI Director’s Appointment
-
Separation of Powers: Judiciary’s involvement in executive decisions contradicts the principle of separation of powers.
-
Judicial Overreach: It may lead to excessive judicial interference in administrative matters.
-
Accountability Issues: The executive, not the judiciary, is directly accountable to the people for governance.
-
Delays in Appointment Process: Legal complexities and judicial scrutiny can slow down the selection of crucial officers.
-
Global Practices Differ: In most democracies, investigative agency appointments are handled solely by the executive or legislature.
|
PYQ: Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. (150 words/10m) (UPSC CSE (M) GS-2 2023) |
|
Practice Question: Examine the implications of judicial involvement in executive appointments, particularly in the selection of the CBI Director, on the principle of separation of powers. (150 Words /10 marks) |
