Jharkhand High Court slammed the state for failing to hold municipal polls despite orders and issued contempt notices to senior IAS officers. The court warned of framing charges for “willful disobedience.”
The Supreme Court of India has invalidated a Madhya Pradesh order allowing IAS officers to assess IFS officers’ performance reports, deeming it “contemptuous.” This ruling reaffirms the autonomy of All India Services, emphasizing that roles must adhere to legal frameworks, potentially influencing practices in other states as well.
Jodhpur, March 12 – The Rajasthan High Court has taken a strict stand in a contempt case involving delayed salary payments and arrears to public employees. On Wednesday, the court directed the state government to withhold the salaries of three bureaucrats due to a delay of over three and a half years in complying with its orders.
India’s governance relies on two key pillars: the judiciary and the administrative bureaucracy. High Court Judges uphold justice and constitutional rights, while IAS officers drive policy execution and governance. This article compares their authority, examining their roles, responsibilities, and influence to determine which holds greater power in shaping law, administration, and public affairs.
![[EXCLUSIVE] "Judges Should Be Selected Through Exams Like IAS Officers": President Droupadi Murmu](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-143.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Speaking at an event organized by the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, President Murmu suggested that an All India Judicial Service could be established to select talented young individuals for the judiciary. President raised an important question regarding the judicial appointment process in India: Should judges of the SC & HC be selected through a competitive examination similar to that of the IAS & IPS officers?
The Union Law Ministry denied rushing the appointment of two election commissioners to preempt Supreme Court decisions on the 2023 law. The Central Government defended the appointments, stating the absence of a judicial member did not affect the Election Commission’s autonomy. The Supreme Court declined to stay the appointments despite objections.