Here's one way of reading it... In recent months higher courts have: 1) tossed out legislation [that was] aimed at creating more public oversight of their own appointments 2) blocked a central government bid [which was intended] to impose direct rule on a state whose legislature had become deadlocked, and 3) ordered the creation of a new agency to manage disaster relief, despite the existence of similar bodies already. The meaning of "oversight" is the noun form of "to oversee" (to supervise). The law was intended to allow the public to review and even criticise how courts are appointed. "Direct rule" would allow a federal government to make decisions instead of the local government. The problem in the local government was that they couldn't come to a decision. "Bid" means "attempt" in this context.

In recent months higher courts have tossed out laws suggested by the government and passed by parliament that are aimed at making future government appointment of (their)office bearers less likey to be noticed ( therefore unlikely to be questioned) by the public, stop the central government's attempt to directly rule a state , even though the state law-making body is not making any progress due to disagreement within it.