Judiciary & Judicial Review

Statement 1 is Incorrect: The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) was constituted under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.
The independent regulator, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), set up under the TRAI Act of 1997, was the first independent regulator in India. Hence, statement 1 is not correct. Statement 2 is correct: PNGRB is tasked to protect the interests of consumers and entities engaged in specified activities relating to petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas and to promote competitive markets and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Statement 3 is correct: The Appellate Tribunal established under Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) shall be the Appellate Tribunal to appeal against the decisions of the PNGRB.

Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions. Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity. Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by:
- A majority of the total membership of the House, and
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 to protect certain laws, particularly those related to land reforms, from judicial review. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1951. This amendment aimed to safeguard progressive socio-economic legislation from being struck down by courts on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 31 (which was later repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1978).

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders and decrees necessary to ensure "complete justice" in any case before it. This power is vast and extraordinary. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to ensure that ordinary laws comply with the Constitution and that complete justice is delivered. Even if an ordinary law creates limitations, the Supreme Court can override it using Article 142 to achieve a just outcome.

Article 21: This article states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of personal liberty to include various fundamental rights, including the right to marry a person of one's choice. Shamima Begum vs. State of Assam (2018): The court ruled that a woman has the right to marry a person of her choice, reinforcing that personal decisions related to marriage fall under individual autonomy and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. Hadiya's case (Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M): The Supreme Court upheld the right to marry as a fundamental right under Article 21. It ruled that an adult woman is free to make decisions regarding her marriage, rejecting attempts to interfere in personal choices. The court emphasized that state or societal disapproval cannot restrict an individual’s right to marry.

Statement 1 is Incorrect: The 44th Amendment actually aimed to reverse the provision introduced by the 39th Amendment, which had placed the elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial review. The 44th Amendment restored the power of judicial review for these elections. Statement 2 is Correct: The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, in 2015 in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India. This amendment sought to replace the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court held that the NJAC undermined judicial independence, a part of the basic structure doctrine, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Right to Privacy and Article 21: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the landmark 2017 judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21. This ruling reinforced privacy as a fundamental right, ensuring protection against unwarranted state and private intrusions. Part III of the Constitution covers Fundamental Rights, which include: - Article 19: Right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement, and other essential liberties. - Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which now includes privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. Article 14: Ensures equality before the law, but does not explicitly deal with privacy. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are non-enforceable guidelines, not fundamental rights. Article 24: Prohibits child labor but has no relation to privacy. Thus, the right to privacy is most closely linked to Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Hence the correct answer is option (c).

Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.

The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. Judicial Review in India refers to the power of the Judiciary to examine laws and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution of India. This power allows the courts to strike down any law or executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Judicial Review is an essential feature of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Thus, Judicial Review acts as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions and reinforces the rule of law in India.