Introduction / Context:
The prompt highlights systemic delays in court adjudication of departmental disputes. We must judge which proposed course of action sensibly follows, considering practicality, institutional roles, and respect for judicial independence.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Courts are slow in deciding important disputes between/within departments.
- Course I: Courts should be ordered to speed up matters.
- Course II: Special powers should be granted to departmental officers to settle disputes concerning their department.
- We assume lawful administrative reforms are acceptable if they do not overreach judicial authority.
Concept / Approach:
- A valid course must be feasible and within appropriate constitutional boundaries.
- Executive “orders” to courts on case speed violate separation of powers; process reform should come from judiciary or legislature.
- Empowering departments with alternative dispute mechanisms can reduce court burden if due process safeguards exist.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Course I: “Order the courts to speed up” is not a reasonable executive action; it infringes judicial independence and gives no concrete mechanism.Assess Course II: Creating empowered in-house or quasi-judicial mechanisms to settle departmental disputes is practical and can reduce filings.Therefore, only Course II follows.
Verification / Alternative check:
Consider real-world analogs: tribunals, arbitration, and departmental appeals are common, lawful methods to expedite resolution without directing judges.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I follows: Not feasible or appropriate.Either/Neither/Both: Do not reflect the differentiated analysis above.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing the need for speed with carte blanche to command courts; proper remedies are process innovations, not directives to the judiciary.
Final Answer:
Only II follows
Discussion & Comments