Content
- Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority
- India’s recent maritime reforms need course correction
Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority
Basics
- Judicial appointments in India: Done through the Collegium system (judge-led mechanism established through SC judgments).
- Collegium system origin:
- First Judges Case (1981) – Executive primacy.
- Second Judges Case (1993) – Judicial primacy (creation of Collegium).
- Third Judges Case (1998) – Collegium expanded to 5 judges (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges).
- Transparency issue: Collegium works in secrecy; decisions rarely explained.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent (2025 case): She reportedly opposed Justice Vipul M. Pancholi’s elevation → dissent concealed, revealed only through media leaks.
- Culture of justification (Etienne Mureinik, South African scholar): Every public power exercise must be explained/defended.
- Democratic principle: Judiciary expects accountability from legislature/executive but resists the same standard for itself in appointments.
Relevance : GS II – Structure, organization and functioning of the judiciary; Issues in appointments; Collegium system; Transparency & accountability of institutions; Separation of powers.
Practice Question : Collegium system has often been criticized for opacity and lack of accountability. Critically examine whether disclosure of dissent within the Collegium could strengthen judicial legitimacy in India.(250 Words)
Significance of Dissent
- Dissent in constitutional courts = vital for accountability, transparency, and legitimacy.
- Suppression of dissent within Collegium undermines public trust.
- Justice Nagarathna’s dissent (grave concerns) never disclosed → democratic deficit.
Structural Issues in Collegium System
- Judge-made law (not in Constitution).
- Decisions deliberated privately, without full disclosure.
- Resolutions published (2017 onwards) → skeletal in nature.
- 2018 experiment of detailed reasons withdrawn citing reputational harm → rollback of transparency.
Defences for Opacity (and Criticism)
- Defence 1: Protect candidates’ reputation
- Counter: Other democracies manage reputational risks through structured disclosure (e.g., UK JAC, South Africa’s JSC).
- Defence 2: Avoid political interference
- Counter: Secrecy has not stopped executive delays or interference; govt can return/reject names.
Comparative Perspectives
- UK: Judicial Appointments Commission publishes criteria + assessment reports.
- South Africa: Public interviews by Judicial Service Commission.
- Both ensure legitimacy through openness, unlike India’s closed-door process.
Democratic Stakes
- Judiciary is unelected but holds extraordinary constitutional powers.
- Legitimacy of unelected judges depends on transparent, justifiable appointments.
- Democracy is not just majoritarianism; judiciary ensures liberty, equality, and protection against majoritarian excess.
Risks of Continued Opacity
- Erodes judiciary’s institutional credibility.
- Creates perception of arbitrariness and favoritism.
- Weakens public faith in judiciary’s independence.
- Judicial independence cannot survive without accountability.
Way Forward
- Collegium must embrace reform:
- Publish structured, reasoned justifications for appointments/rejections.
- Balance reputational concerns with transparency (partial disclosures, anonymized reasoning).
- Adopt global best practices (UK, South Africa) adapted to Indian context.
- Reform = strengthening, not weakening, judicial independence.
- Trust of people = true anchor of judiciary’s authority.
India’s recent maritime reforms need course correction
Basics
- Context: Rajya Sabha passed the Indian Ports Bill, 2025 on August 18.
- Replaces: The colonial-era Indian Ports Act, 1908.
- Part of a legislative package alongside:
- Coastal Shipping Act, 2025
- Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill, 2025
- Merchant Shipping Act, 2025
- Government’s aim: Modernise India’s maritime governance, streamline regulations, align with international conventions, and boost trade & investment.
- India’s maritime importance:
- 7,500+ km coastline, 12 major and ~200 non-major ports.
- 95% of trade by volume and 70% by value carried through sea routes.
- Strategic role in Sagarmala, PM Gati Shakti, and India’s Indo-Pacific vision.
Relevance : GS II – Federalism (Centre-State relations, distribution of powers) , GS III – Economy (Infrastructure – Ports, Shipping); Internal and external security (Maritime security); Investment & trade; Governance reforms , GS I – Geography (resources, ports, trade routes).
Practice Question : The Indian Ports Bill, 2025 has been criticized for excessive centralisation. Analyse its implications for cooperative federalism and Centre-State relations in maritime governance.(250 Words)
Potential Benefits of Reform
- Updates outdated laws (1908 Act not aligned with modern shipping, finance, offshore operations).
- Promotes ease of doing business by unifying fragmented regulations.
- Encourages sustainable port development and coherent planning.
- Aligns India with global maritime practices (safety, liability, training, environmental obligations).
- Strengthens India’s ambition of becoming a global maritime hub.
Concerns with the Indian Ports Bill, 2025
- Centralisation of power:
- Maritime State Development Council chaired by Union Minister of Ports can direct states → undermines federalism.
- States’ maritime boards lose flexibility and fiscal autonomy.
- Opacity in passage: No major parliamentary debate or Standing Committee scrutiny.
- Dispute resolution: Clause 17 excludes civil courts, forces parties into in-house committees → lack of independent judicial review.
- Compliance burden: Smaller operators (especially coastal and fishing communities) may face excessive regulations.
Issues with the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025
- Positives:
- Expands vessel definition (offshore drilling units, non-displacement crafts).
- Tightens oversight of maritime training institutes.
- Aligns liability and insurance with international norms.
- Concerns:
- Dilution of ownership safeguards → allows partial foreign/OCI ownership of Indian-flagged vessels.
- Risk of India becoming a “flag-of-convenience” jurisdiction.
- Recognition of Bareboat Charter-Cum-Demise (BBCD) without strong safeguards → possible foreign control retention.
- Mandatory registration for all vessels, even small ones → bureaucratic overload.
Issues with the Coastal Shipping Act, 2025
- Cabotage rules: Seeks to reserve domestic trade for Indian-flagged vessels.
- Problematic clauses: DG Shipping can license foreign vessels on vague grounds like “national security” or “strategic plans” → scope for arbitrariness.
- Impact on small operators:
- Fishing communities and small cargo operators face compliance costs.
- Mandatory voyage/cargo reporting without data protection clarity → risks misuse.
- Centralised planning: National Coastal and Inland Shipping Strategic Plan mandated by Centre → undermines local autonomy.
Federal and Democratic Deficit
- Lack of state participation in decision-making.
- Over-centralisation mirrors broader debates on Centre-State relations.
- Absence of independent dispute settlement mechanisms reduces trust of private players.
Implications for India’s Maritime Security & Economy
- Short term: Brings India closer to global standards, could attract FDI.
- Long term risks:
- Weakens cooperative federalism.
- Opens loopholes in ownership → potential foreign dominance of Indian shipping.
- May disadvantage small domestic players while benefitting larger corporates.
- Could undermine India’s strategic autonomy in maritime sector.
Way Forward
- Clearly define ownership thresholds in the Act, not through executive discretion.
- Strengthen judicial independence in dispute resolution.
- Introduce federal safeguards → empower states in port governance.
- Calibrate compliance to avoid burdening small operators.
- Learn from best practices (Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority, EU’s competition safeguards in shipping).
- Ensure reforms balance ease of doing business with federal balance, fair competition, and maritime sovereignty.
