If you really willing to taste that experience, then make a time machine and go back in the era of 1975,,, you will got to know how much PARLIAMENT can be a bad**ss!!!
In India court even denies parliamentory supremacy which is a clear sign that even people of the country trust more on judges.That is not a sign of any democratic country..
Judiciary is extremely powerful on pen and paper,! Even Jmfc is much more powerful than any executive puppies!. Just because they got selected through Upsc doesn't mean they have upper hand!
Last but not the least, Those who write and apprehend that DM is powerful, haven't has much experienced in real life! They are just fascinated by social media reels - "ENTRY OF AN IAS/IPS OFFICER"!
Is their any kind of drugs u used to take before sleep or something sort of that??
Look , I'll not elaborate frthr cuz truth is always bitter!! But what I've said is absolutely accurate! "CJM HAS MUCH MORE FAME THAN DM"! I can understand u r jealous, but that's the truth, right?,,, Right!!
Again, same writing style and lack of grasp over language as the guy in the UPSC v. Judiciary thread.
We get it, buddy, you're prepping for judiciary real hard and really want it to be the best career path in the world. But that does not change the reality of things. It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. It's much more complicated than that - the person, the post, the clout. And let's also stop pretending that judges don't have to work within the limits of the law. "oh CJM has more fAmE than Dm" (lolwut) - no.
The one thing that is always missing from these comparisons is the matter of age. Yes, a HC judge is more powerful but also when he’s 50 years old. While an IAS has same amount of power and clout when he’s <30. Makes all the difference in the world to have that kind of power at such a young age. Opens all the doors + the clout is more.
Just a side note, the order of precedence has no constitutional or statutory significance, nor is representational of how much power a person holds/can hold, as that is a super subjective factor anyway depending on a lot of elements.
Guys, back to basics - separation of powers. It is not apple to apple comparison. Superiority of position in cross-functional sense here will be a misnomer.
If you must, the power and authority must be decided based on what confers those powers to each office holder. The Constitution. And as such you got to follow the Order of Precedence.
If your question is influenced by dilemma over career choice, pick either of these and you will be fine. :)
In a democratic set up, it may be undesirable to say who is more powerful than the other as every body has to work within his responsibility and power. However, in the warrant of precedence, a judge of a high court is placed above the IAS officers.
People who keep making these threads and engage in make-believe pissing contests between two different arms of the State dealing with completely different things really have no idea about the law.
Same happened in the other thread also. A guy became super defensive at when the people here actually attempted to disillusion him - the thread was about lower judicial services versus UPSC. The logic ends at "oh judge can summon you so you are inferior hurr durr"
With all due respect, you're talking out of your butt.
Quote:
Senior District Judge (Judicial Service officer) just before he becomes.eligible to be elevated as a HC JUDGE, are often posted as Joint Secretaries in the State Law Dept
There are no joint secretaries who serve at a state level. Jt. Secretaries only serve at the central level - they are EXTREMELY high ranking officers.
Lots of people in the last thread gave us the example of how some serving district judge was appointed as Law Secretary - and that it took IAS officers years to attain Secretary level posts therefore "judge more powerful".
A judge was appointed as Law Sec. for the first time, ever. Asinine to use an exception as a rule and claim a district judge is at par with a Secretary to the GOI in terms of power.
Moreover, the government maintains an in-house cadre called the Indian Legal Service to fill positions in the Central Law Ministry. Most appointees there always ARE judges and advocates. They don't get those positions by virtue of possessing greater power/influence than an IAS officer.
To reiterate, very odd to assume that the Union Home Secretary is less powerful than a district judge because of appointments in a specific ministry which only appoints advocates/judges to their executive posts.
Interesting question because a Senior District Judge (Judicial Service officer) just before he becomes.eligible to be elevated as a HC JUDGE, are often posted as Joint Secretaries in the State Law Dept (talking of Maharashtra and WB here). So this would indicate a junior HC Additional Judge is above a Joint Secy atleast in terms of seniority and pay.
Just quickly going to address all the weird arguments I've seen people make in these kinds of threads:
1) It's unfortunate that commenters are making the same old "Order Of Precedence" arguments again. It's been iterated multiple times by governments that this list is inapplicable for the daily functioning of the state. By this precedence logic, a former vice-president is more powerful than the current CJI? Does that make any sense?
This is a purely ceremonial ranking that tries to satiate the ego of all the three wings of the Indian state - it still does not change the fact that India is not a country with perfect separation of powers - it's a state where the Legislature enjoys slight superiority over the Judiciary and Executive due to the former's ability to impeach and suspend persons serving in the latter two wings. This stuff is taught in basic civics classes now.
It's also strange that some "litigator" in this thread has claimed he's seen IAS officers tremble before HC judges - that sort of stuff sounds like good inspiration for a Jolly LLB franchise movie but doesn't reflect reality. By this same strain of logic, SC judges tremble in front of Ajit Doval? He has the Prime Minister's ear and access to methods of investigation and related technology that's military-grade.
2) What is this drama about how a judge can summon IAS officers and even ministers but that the same ministers/officers can't "summon" a judge? The power to summon is something that's exclusively reserved for courts of law to carry out judicial proceedings, it doesn't prove the superiority of judges. It's frankly quite immature to think so.
Again, by the same logic only an SP can authorise PAC personnel to go and carry out an encounter of dacoits. Judges can't order encounters. Does this mean judges are suddenly not powerful?
Army officers, starting from the post of Brigadier, are allowed to take unilateral action to a large degree at the border - this can quite literally make the Republic enter a state of war - judges can't initiate war so I'd assume they're not powerful either?
See how absurd this logic of "summons" is?
3) Now, coming to the actual comparison. A HC Judge vs an IAS officer.
High Court judges enjoy extra-ordinary privileges against arrests (well, so did IAS officers above the joint secretary level until a certain judgement. You'd still never see the police arrest a Jt. Sec., however). HC judges are eligible for red-light beacons, one of the few functionaries who still are. They get excellent bungalows and adequate support staff.
However, it's very difficult to make this comparison without really knowing the grade at which said IAS officer is.
Is an HC judge more powerful than an SDM? Most definitely. While an HC judge mostly cannot interfere directly in an SDM's work as they belong to different wings of the state - they are still extremely senior and enjoy the benefit of connections made over many decades. A freshly-minted SDM or DM simply cannot compare.
However, compare a HC judge with a Chief Secretary or the state's Home Secretary and things change extremely rapidly.
(The HC judge only has a ceremonial order of precedence rank going for them here.)
Chief Secretaries and Home Secretaries work side-by-side with the Chief Minister of the state. The Chief Secretary is the principal advisor to the CM on all state matters. They are provided palatial housing right next to the CM and his/her cabinet and freely use helicopters and such vehicles for their work (Even DMs have former mansions and palaces reserved as their official residence in most cities.)
They are the administrative lynchpin that connects the CM and the ruling legislative party with any state's executive branch.
A High Court judge simply does not compare with the kind of functions that a CS carries out. The CS broadly oversees every single department that the state runs and specifically hold charge of multiple departments such as personnel, administrative reforms, planing and so on.
They are also the highest nodal point that can be contacted for law and order issues - the CS outranks the state's Director General of Police (DGP).
Compared to ALL of this, a HC judge's domain is indeed restricted. They're powerful functionaries too with political contacts, but an IAS officer works far more closely with public representatives than any judge does. They tend to accumulate considerable political heft after years of manoeuvring through the demands and challenges posed by MPs and MLAs.
A High Court judge has considerable power - they can order arrests for contempt. But that's really it? Unless your case is in the docket and is eventually heard by some HC judge who despises you, they can't really do shit to you.
On the other hand: Chief Secretaries, Home Secretaries' involvement in a citizen's life is huge. Revenue, law and order, health, schooling and whatnot. I'm not going to elaborate much on this but most people here are most likely aware of the kind of power someone who can order around the DGP and controls land-revenue records holds...
Powerful because of the type of matters they judge? Nonsense. I don't have empirical data but I suppose a High Court judge in Tripura would be more powerful in Tripura than a High Court judge in Delhi would be in Delhi.
Both are public servants and neither is supposed to be "powerful". It's because of thought process such as this any semi decent self respecting individual seeks to leave India given an opportunity.
What you say is true but superintendence is not the only definition of power, is it? As the Secretary of an important department, you can literally shape the policy of the entire country (ministers may decide the broader agenda but you direct the fine print). Add to that you have thousands of crores under budgetary discretion to spend on public if you want to do good for others.
In the end, power depends on how you use the power. As a judge, you can be a Bhagwati or a Krishna Iyer whose judgements impacted millions. Or you can be an unknown judge from a high court whose greatest work was a judgement interpreting rule x (iv) under section a (b) of Irrelevant Act, 1986.
Similarly, as an IAS officer, you could be Ajit Doval, Jaishankar or Amitabh Kant. Or you could be the Director of Random Corporation of India.
Is that even a question? In an honest democracy, no one should be mkre powerful than the other. In real world metrics yes ofcourse High Court Judge is more powerful. Just see the Indian order of precedence in tje Constitution of India. IAS officers are constantly in fear of being in contempt of court for their actions. Being CEOs, industry head, secretaries, PSU directors etc, IAS officers have to constantly appear before judges, and being a litigator I have literally seen them trembling before a HC judge. It is like their entire demeanour almost changes.
Depend on the officer/judge. A cabinet secretary is much more powerfully than a high court judge. Whereas a DM, not so much. Also it depends on the court; A Delhi and Bombay high court judge is much more powerful than say one in Tripura, just because of the kind of matters they get.
If you really willing to taste that experience, then make a time machine and go back in the era of 1975,,, you will got to know how much PARLIAMENT can be a bad**ss!!!
Judiciary is extremely powerful on pen and paper,! Even Jmfc is much more powerful than any executive puppies!. Just because they got selected through Upsc doesn't mean they have upper hand!
Last but not the least, Those who write and apprehend that DM is powerful, haven't has much experienced in real life! They are just fascinated by social media reels - "ENTRY OF AN IAS/IPS OFFICER"!
Look , I'll not elaborate frthr cuz truth is always bitter!! But what I've said is absolutely accurate! "CJM HAS MUCH MORE FAME THAN DM"! I can understand u r jealous, but that's the truth, right?,,, Right!!
We get it, buddy, you're prepping for judiciary real hard and really want it to be the best career path in the world. But that does not change the reality of things. It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. It's much more complicated than that - the person, the post, the clout. And let's also stop pretending that judges don't have to work within the limits of the law. "oh CJM has more fAmE than Dm" (lolwut) - no.
(click on the abovementioned link and then tell me, Do you still want to stand firmly on what you've said above)
I belonged to family of judges and I myself experienced what's the name and fame is!! Don't mislead, if u don't know!!
Did u expect the same from judicial officer(s)??
That line - While an "IAS has same amount of power" when he's less than 30" (Joke of the year).
Ever heard the name of Chief Judicial Magistrate?? No?, Might you, anyways I don't care!
Lemme tell you,even the powers of Honourable CJM is much more than that of DM!! And has much more fame too!!
Power & fame of HC judge is, literally, much much much more than that of shitty executive(s), Shocked?!, this is the truth!
If u don't know, keep shut ur mouth, but pls don't mislead!
HC judge is boss and Ias (executive puppy) is servant!
My father is a HIGH COURT Judge,,,,
And all I can say that,,, there is no need to compare honable Judiciary with executive puppies!!
High Court judge is much more powerful!!
If you must, the power and authority must be decided based on what confers those powers to each office holder. The Constitution. And as such you got to follow the Order of Precedence.
If your question is influenced by dilemma over career choice, pick either of these and you will be fine. :)
Even jmfc is much more higher than any govt. Puppies!!
High Court judge >>>>>>>>>Ias officer (j. S level)
Same happened in the other thread also. A guy became super defensive at when the people here actually attempted to disillusion him - the thread was about lower judicial services versus UPSC. The logic ends at "oh judge can summon you so you are inferior hurr durr"
Is this topic usually put up by judicial exam aspirants?
Quote: There are no joint secretaries who serve at a state level. Jt. Secretaries only serve at the central level - they are EXTREMELY high ranking officers.
Lots of people in the last thread gave us the example of how some serving district judge was appointed as Law Secretary - and that it took IAS officers years to attain Secretary level posts therefore "judge more powerful".
Well, not quite.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/serving-sessions-judge-appointed-as-the-union-law-secretary/articleshow/71586832.cms?from=mdr
A judge was appointed as Law Sec. for the first time, ever. Asinine to use an exception as a rule and claim a district judge is at par with a Secretary to the GOI in terms of power.
Moreover, the government maintains an in-house cadre called the Indian Legal Service to fill positions in the Central Law Ministry. Most appointees there always ARE judges and advocates. They don't get those positions by virtue of possessing greater power/influence than an IAS officer.
To reiterate, very odd to assume that the Union Home Secretary is less powerful than a district judge because of appointments in a specific ministry which only appoints advocates/judges to their executive posts.
1) It's unfortunate that commenters are making the same old "Order Of Precedence" arguments again. It's been iterated multiple times by governments that this list is inapplicable for the daily functioning of the state.
By this precedence logic, a former vice-president is more powerful than the current CJI? Does that make any sense?
This is a purely ceremonial ranking that tries to satiate the ego of all the three wings of the Indian state - it still does not change the fact that India is not a country with perfect separation of powers - it's a state where the Legislature enjoys slight superiority over the Judiciary and Executive due to the former's ability to impeach and suspend persons serving in the latter two wings. This stuff is taught in basic civics classes now.
It's also strange that some "litigator" in this thread has claimed he's seen IAS officers tremble before HC judges - that sort of stuff sounds like good inspiration for a Jolly LLB franchise movie but doesn't reflect reality.
By this same strain of logic, SC judges tremble in front of Ajit Doval? He has the Prime Minister's ear and access to methods of investigation and related technology that's military-grade.
2) What is this drama about how a judge can summon IAS officers and even ministers but that the same ministers/officers can't "summon" a judge? The power to summon is something that's exclusively reserved for courts of law to carry out judicial proceedings, it doesn't prove the superiority of judges. It's frankly quite immature to think so.
Again, by the same logic only an SP can authorise PAC personnel to go and carry out an encounter of dacoits. Judges can't order encounters. Does this mean judges are suddenly not powerful?
Army officers, starting from the post of Brigadier, are allowed to take unilateral action to a large degree at the border - this can quite literally make the Republic enter a state of war - judges can't initiate war so I'd assume they're not powerful either?
See how absurd this logic of "summons" is?
3) Now, coming to the actual comparison. A HC Judge vs an IAS officer.
High Court judges enjoy extra-ordinary privileges against arrests (well, so did IAS officers above the joint secretary level until a certain judgement. You'd still never see the police arrest a Jt. Sec., however).
HC judges are eligible for red-light beacons, one of the few functionaries who still are. They get excellent bungalows and adequate support staff.
However, it's very difficult to make this comparison without really knowing the grade at which said IAS officer is.
Is an HC judge more powerful than an SDM? Most definitely. While an HC judge mostly cannot interfere directly in an SDM's work as they belong to different wings of the state - they are still extremely senior and enjoy the benefit of connections made over many decades. A freshly-minted SDM or DM simply cannot compare.
However, compare a HC judge with a Chief Secretary or the state's Home Secretary and things change extremely rapidly.
(The HC judge only has a ceremonial order of precedence rank going for them here.)
Chief Secretaries and Home Secretaries work side-by-side with the Chief Minister of the state. The Chief Secretary is the principal advisor to the CM on all state matters. They are provided palatial housing right next to the CM and his/her cabinet and freely use helicopters and such vehicles for their work (Even DMs have former mansions and palaces reserved as their official residence in most cities.)
They are the administrative lynchpin that connects the CM and the ruling legislative party with any state's executive branch.
A High Court judge simply does not compare with the kind of functions that a CS carries out. The CS broadly oversees every single department that the state runs and specifically hold charge of multiple departments such as personnel, administrative reforms, planing and so on.
They are also the highest nodal point that can be contacted for law and order issues - the CS outranks the state's Director General of Police (DGP).
Compared to ALL of this, a HC judge's domain is indeed restricted. They're powerful functionaries too with political contacts, but an IAS officer works far more closely with public representatives than any judge does. They tend to accumulate considerable political heft after years of manoeuvring through the demands and challenges posed by MPs and MLAs.
A High Court judge has considerable power - they can order arrests for contempt. But that's really it? Unless your case is in the docket and is eventually heard by some HC judge who despises you, they can't really do shit to you.
On the other hand: Chief Secretaries, Home Secretaries' involvement in a citizen's life is huge. Revenue, law and order, health, schooling and whatnot. I'm not going to elaborate much on this but most people here are most likely aware of the kind of power someone who can order around the DGP and controls land-revenue records holds...
I don't have empirical data but I suppose a High Court judge in Tripura would be more powerful in Tripura than a High Court judge in Delhi would be in Delhi.
To sum up what I said there also: it depends on your clout/network.
In the end, power depends on how you use the power. As a judge, you can be a Bhagwati or a Krishna Iyer whose judgements impacted millions. Or you can be an unknown judge from a high court whose greatest work was a judgement interpreting rule x (iv) under section a (b) of Irrelevant Act, 1986.
Similarly, as an IAS officer, you could be Ajit Doval, Jaishankar or Amitabh Kant. Or you could be the Director of Random Corporation of India.