Judiciary

The odd ones out are ii, iii and iv.

- i is a measure that supports judicial independence because the Chief Justice is consulted in appointing other Supreme Court judges.
- ii is not correct as stated, because judges are not simply protected by a rule that they are “generally not removed before retirement”; the Constitution provides a fixed tenure and a difficult removal procedure.
- iii is odd because the chapter says the Constitution provides for safeguards like tenure and difficult removal, but it does not say that a High Court judge cannot be transferred.
- iv is odd because the chapter says the legislature is not involved in appointments, but it does not say Parliament has no say at all in the whole process; the executive and judiciary both have roles.

So the options that are not correctly stated safeguards are ii, iii and iv.

No. Independence does not mean absence of accountability. The chapter says the judiciary is independent of political pressures so that judges can decide without fear or favour, but it is still accountable to the Constitution, the democratic traditions, and the people. It is also bound by law, procedures, and the principle of rule of law. So independence protects fair decisions; it does not make judges above accountability.

The Constitution maintains the independence of the judiciary through these provisions:

- Appointment of judges: The legislature is not involved directly in appointments.
- Fixed tenure: Judges hold office till the age of retirement.
- Difficult removal process: Judges can be removed only in exceptional cases and through a very difficult procedure.
- Financial independence: Salaries and allowances of judges are not dependent on legislative approval.
- Protection from criticism: Judges’ actions are immune from personal criticism, and the court can punish contempt of court.
- Restriction on parliamentary discussion: Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges except during removal proceedings.

These measures help judges work without fear or favour.

The case is about pollution caused by Reliance’s thermal power plant in Dahanu and the harm it caused to chikoo farmers and the local ecosystem.

- Beneficiary: the Dahanu chikoo farmers
- Petitioner: the chikoo growers/farmers who approached the court against pollution

### Possible arguments by the company
- The plant was operating to produce electricity, which is needed for development.
- It may have followed its plans for installing pollution control.
- It could claim that the costs asked for, such as the huge bank guarantee, were too high.
- It might argue that it was taking steps to reduce pollution and should be given time.

### Possible arguments by the farmers
- The power plant caused air and water pollution.
- Fly ash entered groundwater and damaged the eco-system.
- The pollution ruined crop production and the livelihood of farmers.
- The company had ignored earlier orders to install pollution control equipment.
- Their right to livelihood and a healthy environment was being harmed.

So the case pits industrial development against environmental protection and farmers’ livelihood.

### Governments at different levels
- Central Government
- Delhi Government

### Role of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court had issued directives on the CNG norm for buses.
- It acted as the body interpreting and enforcing the law and environmental/public transport policy.
- The governments approached it to seek directions and possibly relaxation of deadlines.

### Elements of judiciary and executive working together
- The executive was responsible for implementing the court’s directions.
- The judiciary was supervising implementation through its orders.
- The Centre and Delhi government coordinated their stand and decided to file affidavits before the Court.
- This shows interaction between policy-making, implementation, and judicial review.

### Policy, legislation, implementation, interpretation issues
- Policy issue: whether Delhi should rely only on CNG or have a dual fuel policy.
- Implementation issue: converting the bus fleet to CNG, setting up filling stations, and meeting deadlines.
- Legislation/law issue: compliance with court directives and environmental standards.
- Interpretation issue: whether the court’s order required CNG for only buses or more broadly for other vehicles.

The case shows how environmental policy, transport regulation, and court orders can all be linked.