One country, two laws, two ways to treat the citizens of the same nation, weird, shocking but true. India, a country ruled by the Constitution of India, the Acts enacted by Parliament as well as the Personal Laws. A need for single law for the whole of nation was felt while making the constitution itself and article 44 of the constitution itself says that the state stall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.

Uniform Civil Code means that all citizens of India will be governed by the same set of ivil laws in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, inheritance etc. It is to note here that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, a male is punished with an imprisonment of seven years if he brings in a second wife, but a male is allowed as per the Muslim Personal Laws. The laws for divorce is also different for both the communities, however, it’s been regularized as per the latest Supreme Court judgment, wherein talaq now requires scrutiny by the Court of Law. Similarly whereas Hindus have a comprehensive Act enacted on adoption this concept is not recognized by the personal laws of Christians and Parsees.

In 1985, the Supreme Court reminded the Parliament in very strong terms to frame a Uniform Civil Code in Shah Bano case. In this case a very poor muslim woman claimed maintenance from her husband u/s 125 of CRPC, after she was divorced by her husband. The Supreme Court held that she did have such a right and observe that even the Quran imposed an obligation on a muslim husband to make a provision for his divorced wife. The response to this judgment was strong and reactionary. Strong protests and disturbance erupted and the anger flared up. To mollify the anger of the minority, the govt. led by Prime Minister Late Rajeev Gandhi immediately sprung into the action and the Parliament passed the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act 1986, which nullified the decision of SC passed in Shah Bano’s case. The second case when the SC again strongly reminded the parliament the need of Uniform Civil code was in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India, when in question on the legality of the second marriage of a hindu husband after getting converted into Islam was in question. The court decided against the legality of such marriage and strongly recommended the necessity of the Uniform Civil Code.

Uniform Civil Code is guided by the basic ideology of equality and equal protection of laws enshrined in our constitution but this issue has become controversial because of two reasons. Firstly it touches the personal laws of different religions and secondly because different political parties use it for their political mileage and make it more controversial and then an unending acrimonious debate on this issue starts. One must understand that Uniform Civil Code is not a weapon directed against any particular community. It is simply a code that puts all the citizens of India irrespective of their caste, religion or gender under one umbrella when the constitution of the nation guarantees equality. Allowing discrimination on the ground of religion and gender is totally unconstitutional, unethical, unwanted, unwarranted and unlawful.

Do we need reservation? This is a controversial question. One section of the society says that reservation divides the society and sows the seed of enmity, conflict, friction and disharmony, while the other section says that reservation is essential to bring the suppressed and the downtrodden to the main stream of the society and for the all round progress of the society.

Broadly speaking progress is of two types. The first one ensures the progress of haves only. The rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. This type of progress can be seen in a Capitalist Society. India is a Socialist Country. Here the Government has to bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots. For this some privileges are given to the weaker section of the society to ensure their progress. In our country this privilege was given in the form of reservation. Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees us Right to Equality which states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste etc but Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provision for reservation in favour of backward classes, which in the opinion of the state are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Besides this Article 15(4) empowers the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes. Now since both types of contrast provisions are there in our Constitution, a need to strike balance between them arises.

Reservation had been such an issue on which even the Courts have given quite contradictory judgments. In Balaji versus State of Mysore the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that national interest would suffer if qualified and competent students were excluded from admissions, while in Indra Sawhney versus Union of India popularly known as Mandal case the court by 6-3 majority upheld the decision of the Union government to reserve 27% government jobs for OBCs, provided, creamy layer among them are excluded.

Reservation had been surely a blessing for the landless, exploited and weaker sections of the society who were punished for even touching the shadow of a higher class person. They could not go to the temple or draw water from the public wells. They were humiliated and despised. They surely needed help and the provision of reservation proved to be a blessing for them. Now, they could also dream of a bright future. Their caste now was not the criteria determining their profession but only reservation cannot improve their status and their educational standard. It would be better if the Government starts a head-start programme of providing them with facilities such as education based on modern technique and demand, besides food and health care, right from childhood, and thus making them competent to compete with the other sections of the society rather than relying on the clutches of reservation. Reviewing reservation policy from time to time and adopting economic criteria for determining backwardness are also ideas worth giving a second thought.

N.R Narayanmurty had once said "India is the only country where people fight to be backward". This was seen time and again but recently in Rajasthan we saw the most violent form of demand; the demand to be called backward! It is said "As you sow, so shall you reap". The weeds of division have been sown now and then for temporary political gains. We cannot expect any harmonious result out of it.

According to our Constitution, India is a Socialist Country. Reservation was a tool provided by our Constitution framers to achieve the goal of socialism enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution. This tool must be used judiciously and not for personal or any political gain. Besides this, ignoring, the advancement of the rest of the society altogether, in zeal to promote the welfare of the state, would be suicidal for a country. Hence, there is a need to strike a balance between progress and welfare.

India is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic country. Here the people choose the Government. The ultimate power lies in the hands of the people. The Government works for the welfare of the people and the information kept by Government holds the memory of the nation and provides a full portrait of its activities, performance and future plans.

The people have the right to know every public way by their public functionaries. Lack of information refuses people the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest and realize the full range of their Human Rights. Therefore the Government of India enacted The Right to Information Act-2005.

The concept and philosophy of Right to Information is already enshrined in our Constitution under the Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 but they were insufficient. This Act has brought this abstract concept to ground reality. Right to Information Act brought a ray of hope at the time when there was rampant corruption and inefficiency in the Government departments. The Right to Information Act 2005 provides a process for citizens to access the information about all actions taken by the Public Authorities except certain information, which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security, strategic, scientific or economic matters related to nation's interest. Although an amendment of this act was under consideration, the amendment would have left it being a toothless tiger. Thankfully, it wasn't amended and the Act Was implemented in its original form.

This act is a welcome step, a step by the Government towards fair, transparent and responsible democracy. However the rest depends on the citizens how they respond to this act to protect their rights. Information is a global resource of unlimited potential for all. This would make the dream of a substantive answerability would decrease the widespread corruption and then the ultimate power would lie in the hands of the people making India not only the largest Democracy, but also one of the strongest democracies.

The Commission is established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment vide the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014. A new article, Article 124A, (which provides for the composition of the NJAC) has been inserted into the Constitution.

COMPOSITION

• Chief Justice of India 
• Two other senior judges of the Supreme Court
• The Union Minister of Law and Justice
• Two eminent persons (one person would be from the SC/ST, OBC, Minority or Woman)

(Eminent persons to be nominated by a committee consisting of CJI, PMoI and the Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha)

FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION

• Recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of High Courts and other Judges of High Courts.
• Recommending transfer of Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts from one High Court to any other High Court.
• Ensuring that the persons recommended are of ability, merit and other criteria mentioned in the regulations related to the act.

MERITS

• Collegium system worked against the rule of natural justice, i.e. Judges’ appointment by judges and a notion of prevalence of favoritism is present. Many judges have said this system has given rise to uncle and son syndrome.
• The transparency is one of the fundamental notions of democracy. The collegium system contradicts such notion as it maintains high secrecy. There is possibility some outstanding judges may be left out of promotions, some undeserving sneaked into.
• The collegium only consider seniority as a sole merit and no heed given to other essential traits, because of this many judges with bad image may occupy such highly sacred post.
• This collegium system is not in Sync with Constitution, which according to Article 124 and 217 says that President should appoint the Judges in consultation with CJI and senior judges and in case of High court in consultation with CJI, governor of state and Chief justice of state
• The rationale of having the Commission instead of the collegium system is to strengthen the quality of appointments made, promote diversity and sustain public confidence in judicial system.
• Lastly, judicial review is the basic feature of constitution of India, and at any time SC may declare this amendment null and void as constitutionally invalid.

DEMERITS

• It may bring the judiciary within the ambit of executive, the recent role of judiciary in 2G and Coalgate scam is a point in this direction.
• Appointment of judges some time required certain technicality, which can be only possible by the expert college like collegium system.
• A fearless and independent Judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution. It may compromise the independence of judiciary which has been cornerstone in ensuring the peoples’ faith in democracy.

The active participation of Judiciary in imparting justice by evolving new principles and interpreting the existing laws in a new way can be termed as judicial activism. Judicial activism has been a hot topic of discussion and debate for some time. Some laud it for being people friendly and in line of justice, equity and good conscience, but some accuse it of being an attempt to usurp the powers of the Legislature and the Executive and a trespass in the domain of the other pillars of this democratic country.

Judicial activism revealed the active side of our judiciary usually accused of being a mute spectator of the judicial proceeding going on before it. Recently judiciary played a very important part in imparting justice to hapless victims wronged by the affluent and high profile accused, many belonging to high echelons of power. The strict attitude of issues of reservation and other legislative matters brought Judiciary face to face with legislature. According to the Executive the Judiciary trespasses its limits. Time and again it is being argued that Judiciary encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the Executive, the Legislature and other institutions in its activism. This criticism is unfounded as in most cases the Judiciary was compelled to act because of the inactivity of the other pillars of our democracy.

There are of course some examples of over enthusiasm. Such over enthusiasm blurs the line of demarcation of the domain of the three pillars of our democracy. Apart from this, there has been an increase in number of cases of contempt of court. The Supreme Court needs to command action rather than issuing too many instructions. Our former chief justice Y. K. Sabharwal once said, "A little conflict between the Legislature and Judiciary is good for a healthy democracy." This highlights the strength of our democracy and how each pillar of our democracy needs to zealously guard the public interest.

Lastly there is a need to evaluate activism. The phenomenon of judicial activism has resulted because of inaction or over action shown by the other two branches of the government. The former Judge of the Supreme Court Krishna Ayer had said once, “Judicial Activism is only a passing phase." This passing phase has come as a timely device to meet the socio-political crisis. In fact by resorting to judicial activism, the judges have taken the judiciary close to the people and etched out a role for itself in a democratic polity governed by the basic law of justice, equity and good conscience.