The judiciary plays a vital role in any democratic society, serving as the guardian of the rule of law and the protector of individual rights. Its independence from other branches of government is crucial for fulfilling these essential functions.
1. Why an Independent Judiciary Matters
- An independent judiciary ensures that laws are applied fairly and consistently, without political or personal influence. This safeguards the fundamental principles of justice and equality.
- The judiciary acts as a check against the potential abuse of power by the executive or legislature. It upholds individual rights enshrined in the Constitution and protects citizens from arbitrary actions.
- An independent judiciary acts as a neutral arbiter in disputes, preventing political turmoil and promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts. It strengthens the foundation of a democratic system.
Ensuring Judicial Independence
The Indian Constitution has implemented several measures to guarantee the independence of the judiciary:
- Judges are appointed through a rigorous process, independent of political interference. They must possess legal expertise and experience before being considered for a position.
- Judges hold office for a fixed term, typically until retirement. This security of tenure protects them from undue pressure and allows them to make impartial decisions without fear of repercussions.
- Removing a judge requires a complex process, involving Parliament and the President. This safeguard makes it difficult for judges to be removed arbitrarily.
- The judiciary's budget is not subject to the approval of the legislature, ensuring financial autonomy and preventing manipulation.
- Judges' actions and decisions are protected from personal criticism, allowing them to focus on their judicial duties without fear of public pressure.
2. Powers of the Judiciary
- The judiciary has the power to punish individuals who disrespect its authority or interfere with its proceedings. This power safeguards the court's integrity and ensures its ability to function effectively.
- Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges except during specific removal proceedings. This protects judges from unwarranted public scrutiny and allows them to make decisions without political interference.
3. The Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India, established on January 28, 1950, stands as the highest judicial body in the country. Its decisions hold ultimate authority, binding all lower courts and shaping the legal landscape of the nation.
Organizational Structure
- Comprised of 31 judges, including one Chief Justice and 30 other justices.
- Originally, the court had eight judges, with the number gradually increasing over time.
- Parliament holds the power to regulate the court's structure and functioning.
Appointment of Judges
- Performed by the President, following specific procedures:
- Chief Justice: appointed after consultation with existing Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- Other Judges: appointed upon consultation with the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- Chief Justice appointments traditionally followed seniority, but this convention has been broken at times.
- The "Second Judges Case" (1993) established the principle of seniority for Chief Justice appointments, prioritizing experience and stability.
High Courts
- Each state has its own High Court, with exceptions where states share a common court authorized by Parliament.
- Handles appeals from lower courts within the state's jurisdiction.
- Protects Fundamental Rights by issuing writs and adjudicating cases related to state matters.
- Exercises supervisory control over lower courts within its jurisdiction.
- Currently, India has 24 High Courts.
District Courts
- Deal with cases arising within their respective districts.
- Consider appeals on decisions made by lower courts.
- Handle significant criminal offences.
- Appointment, posting, and promotion of District Judges are handled by the Governor of the state, in consultation with the High Court.
Subordinate Courts: Handle various civil and criminal cases at the lowest level of the judicial hierarchy.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
- Holds the highest appellate jurisdiction, reviewing cases from lower courts and tribunals.
- Exercises original jurisdiction in specific cases involving disputes between states or the central government and a state.
- Can issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights and protect citizens from infringement by public authorities.
A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office through a process of impeachment. The President issues a removal order following a Parliament address during the same session, supported by a special majority in each House:
- Special Majority: Majority of total membership and at least two-thirds of members present and voting.
- Grounds for Removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) governs the impeachment procedure, yet no Supreme Court judge has been impeached. Impeachment motions for Justices V Ramaswami (1991–1993) and Dipak Misra (2017-18) were defeated in Parliament.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction encompasses various categories:
- Original Jurisdiction: Settles disputes between the Union and States. Resolves disputes among States.
- Appellate Jurisdiction: Hears appeals from lower courts in Civil, Criminal, and Constitutional cases.
- Advisory Jurisdiction: Provides advice to the President on matters of public importance and law.
- Writ Jurisdiction: Issues writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo warranto) to protect Fundamental Rights.
- Special Powers: Grants special leave to appeal from any judgment or matter passed by any court in India's territory.
4. Various Types of Jurisdiction in Detail
Original Jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction refers to cases directly considered by the Supreme Court without prior adjudication in lower courts. Specifically, cases involving federal relations are brought directly to the Supreme Court.
- Establishes the Supreme Court as an umpire in federal disputes.
- Resolves legal conflicts between the Union and states, as well as among states.
- Enables the interpretation of powers assigned to the Union and state governments by the Constitution.
- Unique authority vested solely in the Supreme Court, excluding High Courts and lower courts.
Writ Jurisdiction
Any individual whose fundamental rights have been violated has the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for a remedy. The Supreme Court can issue special orders, known as writs, to address the situation.
- High Courts also possess the authority to issue writs.
- Individuals can choose to approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
- Writs enable the Court to issue specific orders directing or prohibiting executive actions.
Appellate Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court functions as the highest court of appeal, allowing individuals to appeal against High Court decisions. However, for an appeal to be admissible, the High Court must certify that the case involves a significant interpretation of law or the Constitution.
- Applicable in both civil and criminal cases.
- In criminal cases, appeals can be made, especially in cases involving a death sentence.
- The Supreme Court has the discretion to admit appeals, even if the High Court does not allow them.
- Empower the Supreme Court to reconsider legal issues and provide new interpretations.
Advisory Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court possesses advisory jurisdiction, allowing the President of India to seek advice on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation. However, the Court is not obligated to provide advice, and the President is not compelled to accept it.
- Article 137: Grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments or orders.
- Article 144: Requires all civil and judicial authorities in India to act in support of the Supreme Court.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL)
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL) has emerged as a crucial tool for judicial activism in India. Traditionally, individuals could approach the courts only if personally aggrieved, but in 1979, a paradigm shift occurred. The courts, recognizing the importance of issues of public interest, began hearing cases filed not only by the aggrieved parties but also by others acting on their behalf.
Evolution and Scope
- Landmark Cases: The trend of PIL started in 1979 with cases addressing public interest issues, such as prisoners' rights.
- Broader Societal Implications: PIL allows the courts to consider wider societal implications beyond the applicable law.
- Diverse Issues: Public-spirited citizens and voluntary organizations increasingly sought judicial intervention for matters like protecting existing rights, improving living conditions for the poor, and environmental protection.
Role in Judicial Activism: Judicial activism, a philosophy where the courts go beyond the law to consider broader societal implications, found a significant expression through PIL. The judiciary expanded the concept of rights, asserting that individuals, as integral parts of society, have the right to seek justice when their rights are violated.
Positive Aspects of PIL
Negative Aspects of PIL
6. Judiciary and Rights
Remedies for Violation of Rights: The Constitution of India provides two avenues through which the Supreme Court can address the violation of rights:
- The Supreme Court can restore fundamental rights by issuing writs, a power explicitly mentioned in Article 32. High Courts also possess the authority to issue such writs under Article 226.
- The Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional and hence non-operational under Article 13.
Judicial Review: The pivotal power of the Supreme Court is the power of judicial review. Although the term "judicial review" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it refers to the Supreme Court's authority (and High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law. If the Court finds a law inconsistent with the Constitution, it declares the law unconstitutional and inapplicable. The power of judicial review is implicit, stemming from India having a written constitution, and the Court's ability to strike down laws conflicting with fundamental rights.
7. Judiciary and Parliament
- Controversies between the Parliament and the judiciary have revolved around several key issues:
- The judiciary and Parliament have grappled with defining the extent of the right to private property.
- There have been disputes concerning the Parliament's authority to limit, curtail, or abrogate fundamental rights.
- The judiciary and Parliament have faced questions about the scope of Parliament's power to amend the constitution.
- Another area of contention involves whether Parliament can enact laws that limit fundamental rights while promoting directive principles.
|
Previous Year Questions
1. Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character? (upsc 2021) (a) The independence of judiciary is safeguarded. (b) The Union Legislature has elected representatives from constituent units. (c) The Union Cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties. (d) The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by Courts of Law. Answer: A2. With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (upsc 2021)
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: A
3. In India, separation of judiciary from the executive is enjoined by (upsc 2020) (a) the Preamble of the Constitution (b) a Directive Principle of State Policy (c) the Seventh Schedule (d) the Conventional Practice Answer: B
Mains
1. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (upsc 2021)
2. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgment on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (upsc 2017)
3. Khap Panchayats have been in the news for functioning as extra-constitutional authorities, often delivering pronouncements amounting to human rights violations. Discuss critically the actions taken by the legislative, executive and the judiciary to set the things right in this regard. (upsc 2015)
4. Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy. (upsc 2014)
|
