AGENDA - .

Deliberating upon the exercise of

judicial power under the scope of
complete justice as prescribed by
Article 142, while examining the
collegium system and the Judges
(Inquiry) Act, 1968
 INDEX

Topic
1. Letter from the Executive Board
2. Rules of Procedure (ROP)
3. An Introduction to the Agenda
4. Landmark Judicial Judgements
5. 99th Amendment Act
State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of
6.
Tamil Nadu
7. Past Usages of Article 142
8. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Verdict
In-House Mechanism to address Judicial
9.
Misconduct
10. Synopsis: Justice Yeshwant Varma
Procedure for Removal of Judges
11.
(excluding house in inquiry)
 Topic
12 Failed attempts at Removal of Judges
13 Relevant Constitutional Articles
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
14
(QARMA)
15 Research Guide
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD
Greetings delegates.
It is an honour for us to be serving as the executive board at Delhi
Public School Bengaluru East Model United Nations 2025. From
Motions of No Confidence to seeing the Ruling and Opposition
parties lock horns, the All India Political Parties Meet demands
proficiency in various areas, and a diverse set of skills, setting it
apart from any other conventional committee.
In order to aid your understanding of the topic, we have decided to
provide this background guide for your reference, as a way to grasp
core concepts related to topics we hope to see debate on from all
the delegates in the committee. Below, you will find a brief on the
actual agenda, and some research links to help you get started with
your research. Kindly note that this guide may not be cited as a
source for information if asked, and is not intended to be a
definitive text, i.e. each delegate is expected to research beyond just
this document.
It is absolutely mandatory to conduct in-depth research on the
topic, and we expect all delegates to be familiar with the nuances of
the law. Read as much as possible, but form your own opinions and
arguments to bring to battle. The more you read, the more you will
learn and the more you will be able to engage, and thus the better
chance you will have of winning a prize in this committee.
For any clarifications regarding this guide, the committee, or the
agenda, please feel free to contact the EB. We are looking forward
to an action packed committee.
Sincerely:
Tannmay Kumarr Baid - Head Chairperson
Aarav Ankur Motreja - Vice Chairperson
Elba - Moderator
RULES OF PROCEDURE (RoP)
Flow of Committee:

Roll Call: At the beginning of each session, the chairperson(s)

shall record the presence of each participant, and determine
quorum, as well as simple and special majority.

Opening Statement: Members of the Committee, will be given 90

seconds (per member) to present an opening statement outlining
their portfolio’s views on the agenda.

This is a non-exhaustive list, and the committee will return to

opening statements in the absence of passage of any other motion.

Question Hour: It is an opportunity for delegates to question

other Members on any topic not related to the agenda.

Members to whom questions are addressed will be informed of said

questions prior to the commencement of Question Hour, and will be
given adequate time to prepare responses.

It is a moderated Question and Answer session, and delegates will be

expected to submit questions to the Speaker’s desk [Executive Board]
for approval.

The Executive Board will designate questions as Starred or

Unstarred:
Starred Questions are those questions where oral answer is
mandatory, and supplementary questions allowed by default
 Unstarred Questions are those questions where answers may be oral
or written in chit form. Supplementary questions are disallowed
unless indicated otherwise by the Executive Board.

Note: Each delegate will be limited to a maximum of 3 (three)

submissions for Question Hour.

Discussion Sessions (Moderated Caucuses): Members of the

Committee will decide and pass a motion to enter a discussion
session, with both a fixed topic and time per speaker. Forming the
core medium of debate in the committee, there will be two forms of
engagement post speech, namely:

Points of Information- Members will be allowed to question

speakers on the topic of the discussion session, or on the content of
their speeches.
Note: Members shall not use Points of Information to request a
delegate to repeat any part of his/her speech.

Points of Order- This point may be raised in rebuttal to another

delegate’s speech. It points out a mistake or flaw in the delegate’s
speech. A delegate asking a point of order must quote verbatim, the
part of speech containing an error made by the speaker.

This point can be of two types:

Factual Inaccuracy
Logical Fallacy
Note: Points of Order will not be entertained for the duration of the
Opening Statements.
 Coordination Sessions (Unmoderated Caucuses): A form of
informal debate that allows the delegates to speak freely amongst
each other for a set amount of time, without a particular topic being
discussed.

Motions: Above sessions shall be proposed by individual delegates, and

voice-voting will be conducted to determine the passage of said motion.
Those in favour of the motion, when prompted, must say “Aye”
Those against the motion, when prompted must say “Nay
Documentation:
Press Releases: A Press Release, as the name suggests, is a
method of informing the committee, via a news agency, of any
new developments in committee. Press Releases may be sent at
any point of time when in formal session, except during
Question Hour, Zero Hour and Tabling of Bills.

Draft Resolutions/Draft Bills: The function of the legislature of a

nation is to draft laws, and hence we expect Final Resolutions in
this committee. To be submitted to the dais, the final document
requires 1/3rd of the committee’s strength as signatories, and can
generally have 2 sponsors.

A sponsor: will be expected to present the bill to the committee, as

well as respond to any queries from the committee or the Executive
Board regarding the contents of the bill.
A signatory: wants to see the bill discussed in committee, and need
not agree with the content of the bill. A delegate may be a signatory
to multiple bills, but a sponsor cannot be a signatory to any bill,
including his own.

Further clarification on which format documentation is expected to

be presented can be sought during committee meetings
 An Introduction to the
Agenda
An exceedingly simple concept such as the independence of the judiciary, so simple
that it is taught to the youngest links of our democracy, our students, seems to have
turned into a precarious predicament that has left our government, and, indeed, our
elected representatives at their wits end.
The strength of this third pillar of democracy lies in the fact that it stands alone,
without resting on any of the other two pillars. The fundamental role, in fact the
substance of the judiciary’s continued relevance in today’s world, is to keep the
tyranny of the state at bay.

And it is indisputable that this pillar must be conferred certain powers in order to
permit it to achieve this objective, through whatever means necessary. But, what
happens when this power evolves from mere checks and balances, to hegemony.
What happens when the judiciary, whose intent was to safeguard citizens from the
ever more oppressive policies of the state, in turn, becomes the oppressor itself?
What happens when the state and the judiciary seemingly become mere tools in
furtherance of the common intention of browbeating the common man? What
happens when these organs of government become so embroiled in their own
disputes that one can no longer distinguish between the protector and the nemesis?

We risk becoming mute spectators to the spiral of our country into a state
reminiscent of an Orwellian dystopia, with institutions with whom lies the
responsibility of carrying the trust of millions, if not billions of citizens, becoming
mere shells of what they once were.

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - Lord Acton

And it is the interface of these concepts, each of which are in and of themselves
vast, that brings us to our agenda for the All India Political Parties Meet, at Delhi
Public School Bengaluru East Model United Nations 2025:

“Deliberating upon the exercise of judicial power under the scope of complete justice
as prescribed by Article 142, while examining the collegium system and the Judges
(Inquiry) Act, 1968”
 Landmark Judicial Judgements

1st Judges Case:

Background of the First Judges Case

The First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981) arose from a conflict
between the executive and judiciary over control of judicial appointments and
transfers. There were certain major reasons for the institution of this case:

The appointment of Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice of India, bypassing

three senior judges, allegedly due to their adverse ruling against the
government in the iconic Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

A multitude of writ petitions were initiated by various legal practitioners

across different high courts. The common challenge in all these petitions
was a challenge to a government order pertaining to the non-appointment
of two judges and their subsequent transfer. This legal saga began with the
filing of the initial petition in the Bombay High Court, followed by a second
petition lodged in the Delhi High Court. These petitions not only contested
the government’s order but also raised constitutional concerns regarding
the procedure employed for appointing judges to higher courts.

Judgement of the First Judges Case:

Majority Decision - 5:2

In SP Gupta vs Union of India, a majority decision of 5:2 affirmed the validity of
not extending the term of an additional judge, specifically, Judge S.N. Kumar.
The matter was heard by a 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.
Justice Bhagwati proposed the establishment of a collegium to recommend
candidate names to the President for appointing judges in the Supreme Court
and High Courts.
Conversely, Justice Pathak and Tulzapukar emphasised the importance and
supremacy of the Chief Justice of India’s opinion and advice over others. It was
unanimously agreed that ‘consultation’ meant comprehensive and effective
deliberation, requiring constitutional functionaries to base their decisions on
complete and identical facts.
2nd Judges Case
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCARA) [Link] of India
is known as the Second Judges Case. The majority verdict, in this case, was
delivered by Justice J.S. Verma and this case resulted in the birth of the
collegium system. Another petition was filed by Supreme Court Advocates on
Record Association and the Supreme Court in this case overruled S.P. Gupta
v. Union of India and laid down the following points-
The Case has established the Chief Justice of India’s primacy in
appointments and transfers. It ruled that “consultation” means
concurrence, binding the President to the Chief Justice’s consultations.
The court held that the Chief Justice of India, in consultation with 2
senior judges, should make recommendations. The executive should
normally give effect to such recommendations.
It overruled the previous S.P Gupta Vs Union of India, which said
consultation does not mean concurrence.
Herein lies the substantive basis for today’s collegium system of
appointment.

3rd Judges Case

The Third Judges Case was not litigated in a conventional manner, but was
merely borne out of an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court, in response
to a Question of Law, raised under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, by
the then President.
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution grants the President the power to
consult the Supreme Court on matters of law or fact that are deemed to be of
public importance

This judgement expanded the Collegium from one member consisting solely
of the Chief Justice of India to the Chief Justice of India + four senior most
members of the Supreme
Court for Supreme Court Collegium and to Chief Justice + two senior most
members for the High Courts.
This remains the prevalent collegium system in the present day.
99th Amendment Act:
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 introduced The National
Judicial Appointments Commission as an alternative to the Collegium System,
in order to create a more transparent and accountable system of appointment
of judges.
The Commission consisted of the CJI as the ex-officio chairman, 2 Supreme
Court Judges, the Law Minister and 2 eminent members chosen by a selection
committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and
the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, was brought to provide a more
unbiased approach towards appointments.

It has been plagued by many criticisms with regard to accusations of

undermining judicial independence as Two members of this commission could
veto appointments, and this mechanism was to introduce a multi stakeholder
system of appointments to ensure fair appointments of judges.
4th Judges Case:
The Fourth Judges Case, is the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association
(SCARA) and another V. Union of India In this case, the National Judicial
Appointments Commission Act, 2014 was challenged in the Supreme Court
prior to it coming into force.
Refer:
[Link]
2015/
 State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu

This case arose due to “unconstitutional” delays by RN Ravi, the governor of Tamil
Nadu, as he was unwilling to give assent to multiple bills passed by the state
legislature.

Article 200 states that after the passage of a Bill by a state Legislative Assembly, or in
case of a bicameral legislature, both Houses of the state, the Bill ought to be presented
to the Governor. The Governor shall then have either of three options:
to assent to the Bill,
withhold assent from the Bill,
or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President.

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pass a decree
deeming said bills as passed despite the lack of assent by the governor, essentially
overruling Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree
necessary for complete justice in any pending case before it. This power is
discretionary and unique to the apex court.

This provision inadvertently leads to the creation of the “Pocket Veto” where the
Governor is allowed the power to take no action on a bill and keeps it pending
indefinitely. However, the Governor may return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration
with recommendations for amendments. This is what is referred to as a “qualified
veto”.
The apex court invoked article 142, and ruled the following:
[Link] Constitution does not allow the Governor to exercise "absolute veto" or
"pocket veto." The term "as soon as possible" in Article 200 underscores urgency
in the Governor’s decision-making.
[Link] the bill is unchanged, the Governor must assent to it, unless the bill differs in
content from the original one.
[Link] Court ruled that the Governor has no discretion & must act as per Council of
Ministers’ advice.
[Link] Court also held that the Governor’s delay was erroneous. Exercising
discretionary powers under Article 142, the bench held the pending bills as
deemed to be assented.
[Link] Court held that if a Governor or President does not act on a bill within a time
period set by the court, a writ of Mandamus could be issued against him/her to
exercise appropriate action.
This judgement seemingly contradicts the apex court’s prior
ones. For example, in Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab, a
landmark 1974 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the
Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers as a rule and can only exercise discretionary
powers as an exception.
The other criticisms for the judgement stem mainly from
the fact that a two judge bench, led by Justice JB Padriwala
and R Mahadevan interpreted a constitutionally ambiguous
article as a division bench, instead of referring something so
major to a constitutional one or leaving it to the approval of
parliament.

Furthermore, the Court held the pending bills as deemed to

be assented, which sparks criticism, as constitutionally, a
subject in the State List can become an Act only when it
receives the assent of the governor.
By invoking Article 142, it has seemingly sought to override
the plain language of Article 200, set time limits for the
Governor to act on a Bill, compel the President of India to
seek the Court’s opinion, and even open the door for
mandamus against the President if that advice isn’t
followed.
 Past Usages of Article 142

Ayodhya Verdict (2019) - Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid

Dispute:
Case: M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019
Here, while the judgment awarded the disputed site for the
construction of a Hindu temple, the Supreme Court utilised
Article 142 to grant 5 acres of alternate land to a Muslim trust
for the construction of a mosque.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) - Guidelines Against

Sexual Harassment:
Here, due to the lack of legislation preventing and penalising
sexual harassment in the workplace, the Court framed the
Vishaka Guidelines under Article 141, and mandated its
implementation using Article 142, for an interim period until
the Parliament deemed it fit to enact laws.
 The Bhopal Gas Tragedy verdict:

Case: Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1991

The Supreme Court used Article 142 to order a settlement of
$470 million to be paid by Union Carbide to victims, despite
there not being a formal law existing to mandate such
compensation.
 In-House Mechanism to address
Judicial Misconduct

I. Origin of the In-House Mechanism

The judiciary themselves formulated an internal, non-statutory
[Link] in-house inquiry mechanism was laid down in the
case of Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995).The
Supreme Court established a middle ground, i.e. a procedure for
addressing judicial misconduct in the Supreme and High Courts that
fall short of removal under Article 124 (4).

II. Structure of the Mechanism

Complaints are received by the Chief Justice of India, either directly

from concerned members or from the President or the Chief Justice
of any high court. If the complaint is deemed not frivolous, a three-
member committee of senior judges is constituted to conduct a
preliminary inquiry.

III. Modifications in 2014

In 2014, this process was formally updated by the Supreme Court.

The revised guidelines expanded the scope of the in-house inquiry
mechanism, putting forth a seven step process.
IV. Action post In-House Inquiry

If the misconduct is not serious, the CJI may advise the

judge and place the report on record.

If the misconduct is serious, the CJI advises the judge to

resign or retire.

If the judge refuses, the CJI directs the HC CJ to stop

assigning judicial work.

If the judge still does not resign, the CJI informs the
President and Prime Minister, recommending removal
proceedings

The powers of this in-house inquiry mechanism are limited, with

most culminating in mere advice to resign to judges against
whom allegations were made, and found to be true. This
provides a loophole for judges to avoid punitive action or
penalties for proven judicial misconduct. Furthermore, the fact
that this system has been evolved through multiple Supreme
Court judgements, not statute or law, allows for a greater deal of
flexibility in its amendment and adaptability, leading to
potential misuse and miscarriage of justice.
 Synopsis: Justice Yeshwant
Varma

On 22 March 2025, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted

a three-member committee to investigate the allegations
against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. A
fire had broken out at Justice Varma’s official residence in
Delhi on 14 March. Initial reports estimate that close to Rs.
15 crore were found at his residence during the firefighting
operation. The figure has not been officially confirmed.

Justice Varma has categorically denied all allegations of

misconduct. The results of this inquiry are still pending,
however Justice Varma will not be assigned any judicial
work for the time being.
 Procedure for Removal of Judges
(excluding in house inquiry):
Article 124(4) of the constitution talks about removal of judges of the Supreme
Court. Article 217 talks about the same for High Court Judges. The Judges can
be removed on only 2 grounds, namely:
Proven Misbehavior
Incapacity
These words have not been defined and have been left open to interpretation.

Article 124(5) of the Constitution confers the Parliament with the powers to
regulate the procedure of investigation and proof of the misbehavior or
incapacity of a Judge under clause(4).

Removal of Judges is a long and challenging process which has been drawn out
under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. At least 100 Members of the Lok Sabha or
50 Members of the Rajya Sabha, as the case might be, must first submit a
motion to the Presiding officer of the House. The motion, once submitted, is
examined by the Speaker or the Chairman who then decides whether or not to
admit the motion. While considering the motion, he may take into account
supporting evidence as may have been provided to him. If the motion is not
admitted, the process of removal ends there. This stage is not subject to judicial
review.

If the Presiding Officer deems the motion to be fit, he may admit the motion
and constitute a committee, as soon as possible to investigate whether the
grounds on the basis of which the motion was admitted.
The Committee, will consist of 3 members :
One member will be amongst the Judges of the Supreme Court (including
but not limited to the CJI)
One member will be amongst the Chief Justices of High Courts
One member will be a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker (or
Chairman as case may be) a distinguished Jurist

This committee frames charges and undertakes an investigation into the

grounds of removal. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee
submits a report which
contains its findings to the Speaker or Chairman (as case may be) who
shall lay down this report in front of the House.

If the Committee finds the Judge “not guilty”, then no further steps in
furtherance of the removal shall be taken and the motion will be
discontinued. If the report finds the Judge “guilty” on the charges
framed, then the House can undertake a discussion on the findings of
the report, at the conclusion of which motion can be passed under the
provisions of Article 124(4) or 218 as the case might be.

Under Article 124(4) of the constitution, a Judge can be removed only by

an order of the President after an address by both the Houses of the
Parliament supported by a special majority of at least 2/3rds of
members present and voting. It is important to note that such an
address needs to be presented to the President in the same session it
has been passed. However this is not to be confused with the judgement
given in the 1991 case of the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability
of India where the Supreme Court clarified that a motion initiated to
remove a judge does not lapse with the formation of a new government.
This judgement is particularly important due to the notation that the
removal of judges involved “a judicious blend of the political and
judicial processes.”

Thus, the process of removal of judges consists of many steps, and is

extremely challenging. This is deliberately designed, in order to
maintain the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary. However, due to
such stringent provisions, no judge after the constitution has been
made, has been removed even after being found guilty by the Inquiry
Committee.

After the Ramaswami Case, a separate in house inquiry mechanism was

formed by the supreme court, which is not to be confused with the
inquiry committee under the Judicial Inquiry Act (1968):
 Failed attempts at Removal of
Judges:

As previously mentioned, after the formation of the

Constitution of India, no judge has been removed through office
through the initiation of removal proceedings. In order to
understand the facts and outcomes of a few significant cases:

V Ramaswami Case:

V Ramaswami was faced with certain allegations regarding

financial misconduct during his tenure as the Chief Justice of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He faced these
allegations when he had already been elevated to the Supreme
Court as a Judge. The then Chief Justice Of India, Justice
Sabyasachi Mukharji, constituted a three member committee
headed by Justice B.C Ray, to investigate into the case and find
out whether there was any truth to the allegations. No ground
for action was found by the internal committee, but the
situation escalated quickly with allegations refusing to be
dropped.

Thus, the Parliament initiated removal proceedings, with the

Speaker formally constituting the inquiry committee under the
Judicial Inquiry Act [Link] committee found the judge guilty
on 11 out of 14 charges. However, in the end the motion failed
as it did not garner the support of the required majority and
Ramaswami was not removed from office.
Relevant Constitutional Articles

Article 124 (2) - Appointment of Judge to Supreme Court

Article 124(4) - Removal of Judge of the Supreme Court of
India on two grounds
Proven Misbehaviour
Incapacity

Article 124(5) – Parliament’s power to regulate judge removal

Article 124A - Constitution of NJAC (struck down)
Article 124B - Functions of the Commission (struck down)
Article 124C - Parliament may regulate NJAC procedure by law
Article 129 - Supreme Court is a court of record with contempt
powers
Article 131 - Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Centre-
State disputes
Article 142 - Supreme Court's power to do complete justice
Article 143 - Power of President to consult Supreme Court
(Advisory jurisdiction)
Article 145(3) - Minimum five judges for cases involving
constitutional interpretation
Article 217 - Appointment of Judge to High Court
Article 218 - Removal of High Court judges same as SC judges
Article 50 - Separation of Judiciary from Executive
Article 147 - Interpretation of constitutional provisions
Article 361 – Immunity of President/Governor from court
proceedings
Schedule III – Forms of oath for judges
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
(QARMA):
[Link] changes, if any, are required to be made to any future proposal
of an act seeking to overhaul prevalent systems of appointment
and/or removal of judges?

[Link] there an apparent need to mandate disclosure of assets of Judges,

Magistrates and other judicial officers, similar to the duty of
disclosure imposed upon civil servants?

[Link] there a legislative gap with regards to the extent of discretion

provided to the Judiciary as the interpreters of the constitution? Does
such a gap permit the Judiciary to, in essence, rewrite the
constitution??

[Link] the manifestation of vested interests of the executive and/or

political motives in the appointment and internal workings of the
Courts lead to potential miscarriage of justice, and if so, how can this
impact be minimised by legislative changes to balance the autonomy
of the judiciary and the executive?

[Link] there be any boundary framed, limiting the powers of the Courts
in respect to passing and ordering enforcement of any directive in the
interest of Complete Justice?

[Link] current provisions penalising judicial misconduct fall short of

deterring such acts, and what measures can be taken to ensure
corrective action against violators?

[Link] there is a fairer method of evaluation of veracity of accusations of

impropriety of holders of judicial positions than the current in-house
mechanism, in keeping with the principles of natural justice?
 Research Guide:
The Executive Board has compiled this background guide to serve as a foundation for
further research, and as such, certain essential and reliable texts have been linked below
to get you started off with your research. We wish each and every one of you the best of
luck in your preparation for Delhi Public School Bangalore East Model United Nations.

⁠ ttps://[Link]/collegium-system-in-
h
india/#:~:text=The%20Collegium%20refers%20to%20a%20body%20of%20judges,the%20
four%20senior-most%20judges%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court.

⁠ ttps://[Link]/article/explained/explained-law/this-word-means-collegium-
h
9898690/

⁠[Link]

⁠ ttps://[Link]/legal/article-2973-constitutional-framework-for-
h
[Link]

⁠ ttps://[Link]/news/india/time-to-replace-collegium-system-
h
bring-in-njac-or-something-better-former-law-minister-ashwani-
kumar/articleshow/[Link]

⁠ ttps://[Link]/article/opinion/columns/justice-yashwant-varma-case-peer-
h
review-is-the-proper-channel-10063693/

⁠ ttps://[Link]/article/opinion/columns/the-unanswered-questions-in-
h
justice-yashwant-varma-episode-9921091/

⁠ ttps://[Link]/search?
h
q=article%20142%20judicial%20overreach%20instances%20indian%20express&qs=n&for
m=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=article%20142%20judicial%20overreach%20instances%
20indian%20express&sc=0-55&sk=&cvid=2D585CCF4F9D426B8E82C06C0D4661D4

⁠[Link]

[Link]
[Link]
njac/
[Link]
their-reforms
[Link]
ploads/2022/08/[Link] [Link]
content/uploads/2024/11/[Link]