🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the March edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on March 26, 2025

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

What is India’s approach to citizens on death row abroad?

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international significance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Governance on capital punishment

Context:

On March 3, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) informed that the execution of Shahzadi Khan, an Indian national sentenced to death in the UAE for the alleged murder of an infant, was already carried out. The Ministry’s confirmation came as a response to a petition filed by her father Shabbir Khan. In less than a week, the Ministry confirmed that two more Indian nationals, convicted in separate cases, were also executed in the UAE.

Read about:

Death Sentence

Ethics around Capital punishment

Key takeaways:

• According to data presented by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in the Rajya Sabha on March 20, a total of 49 Indian nationals are currently facing the death penalty in foreign countries.
• The highest number of such cases is in the UAE, where 25 Indians are on death row, followed by 11 in Saudi Arabia. In response to the Rajya Sabha query, the MEA stated that Indian diplomatic missions abroad extend all possible support to Indian citizens convicted by foreign courts.
• Providing insights into how the MEA handles such cases, former Indian Ambassador to Oman, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, Talmiz Ahmad, explained that the process unfolds in three stages. The first involves the individual's arrest and subsequent indictment by the authorities.
• The second stage is a lengthy judicial process that leads to the sentencing. The final stage is the possibility of a pardon granted by the country’s ruler or head of state. When an individual is categorized as being on death row, it signifies that both the arrest and judicial procedures have been completed, and the court has confirmed the sentence.
• At this stage, the only recourse available to the convicted person or their representatives is to seek clemency from the ruler. The plea for a pardon is usually initiated by the accused’s family, and if they reside in India, they receive guidance on submitting the petition. Once prepared, the Indian embassy forwards the petition to the respective foreign office, urging that it be presented to the ruler for consideration.
• In several Gulf nations, a death sentence may also be commuted if the victim’s family agrees to accept ‘blood money,’ which is compensation provided in place of capital punishment. However, this option depends on the approval of both the victim’s family and the state.
• In certain cases, governments may refuse to grant clemency based on the severity of the crime. Capital punishment is typically reserved for serious offenses such as murder, rape, and treason. In countries with authoritarian governance and opaque judicial proceedings, such as Saudi Arabia, Indian embassies are often not informed about an individual’s arrest, trial, or sentencing.
• They receive official confirmation of the case only after the execution has taken place. The embassy's involvement is further restricted when the accused confesses to the crime, as the circumstances surrounding such confessions often remain unclear.
• Conversely, in countries with relatively transparent judicial systems, Indian embassies have the option to appoint legal representatives for the accused and may also utilize welfare funds to cover legal expenses when necessary.
• The Indian government has successfully intervened in several cases to secure relief for its citizens. For instance, in February last year, eight former Indian Navy personnel, who had been sentenced to death by Qatar’s government, were released following diplomatic negotiations and legal appeals.
• Similarly, Gurdip Singh, an Indian national convicted of drug trafficking in Indonesia and sentenced to death in 2005, had his appeal rejected by both the High Court of Banten and the Supreme Court. However, due to India's diplomatic intervention, his execution was ultimately averted

 Follow Up Question

1.Discuss the role of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Indian diplomatic missions in assisting Indian citizens facing legal issues abroad, particularly those on death row. (250 words)

How is an in-house inquiry conducted?

For Preliminary Examination:  Collegium System, NJAC

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has constituted an in-house committee to conduct an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Justice Yashwant Varma. This follows recovery of huge piles of cash at his residence during a fire-control operation

Read about:

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Chief Justice of India (CJI)

Key takeaways:

On March 14, a fire erupted at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma. During firefighting operations, authorities reportedly found large amounts of burnt cash inside a storeroom. Following a preliminary inquiry, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court informed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that the matter warranted a deeper investigation. In response to the CJI’s directives, Justice Varma was asked to clarify his stance on the inquiry’s findings. He maintained that neither he nor his family had ever stored cash in the storeroom and that they were not shown the burnt currency sacks during the fire-control operation. As per the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure, a three-member committee has been formed to investigate the allegations. Meanwhile, judicial responsibilities have been withdrawn from Justice Varma, and he has been transferred back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, as decided by the collegium.

Understanding the In-House Procedure

• The Supreme Court has established an internal inquiry mechanism to address allegations of misconduct against judges in higher judiciary. This in-house procedure was formalized in 1999 and made public in 2014.
• When a complaint is filed against a High Court judge, the CJI first determines whether it is frivolous or requires further investigation. If an inquiry is deemed necessary, the judge’s initial response, along with comments from the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, is taken into account.
• A three-member committee is then constituted, typically including two Chief Justices from different High Courts and one High Court judge. Based on their findings, the committee may either conclude that the misconduct is not severe or recommend that the judge be removed.
• If removal is suggested, the judge is asked to resign. Should they refuse, the matter is escalated to the President and Prime Minister for parliamentary action as per constitutional provisions.
• For complaints against a High Court Chief Justice, the inquiry panel consists of a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices from other High Courts. In cases involving Supreme Court judges, the committee comprises three Supreme Court judges.
• Regarding Justice Varma’s case, the CJI has constituted an inquiry panel comprising the Chief Justices of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and a judge from the Karnataka High Court.

Proposed Reforms

• Currently, in-house inquiry details remain confidential, which raises concerns about transparency. Introducing a practice of publicly disclosing key findings could enhance trust in the judicial accountability process.
• Additionally, despite being found guilty of misconduct in previous inquiries, no judge has faced criminal penalties, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement measures.
• The United Kingdom has an independent body, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which oversees allegations of judicial misconduct. Establishing a similar autonomous and permanent institution in India under the CJI’s supervision could strengthen accountability.
• Another underlying issue stems from the opaque collegium system used for judicial appointments. While it safeguards judicial independence, it lacks transparency and accountability.
• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for violating the judiciary’s independence, could be reconsidered with modifications.
• A restructured NJAC, led by the CJI and including members from the legislature, bar associations, and academia—similar to South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission—could enhance inclusivity in the selection process.
• Retaining a veto power for the CJI and senior judges would ensure judicial independence while making the appointment system more transparent and participatory