Judiciary Notes
Judiciary Notes
Judiciary Notes
Independence of judiciary
Freedom from Government Influence
Ensuring the judiciary isn't restrained by the executive or legislature, allowing it to function freely and deliver
justice.
Preventing interference in judicial decisions by other branches of government.
Judges should operate without fear or favor, preserving impartiality and fairness.
Accountability within Democratic Structure
Being accountable to the Constitution, democratic traditions, and the people.
Independence doesn't imply arbitrariness; the judiciary operates within the framework of democratic principles
and is accountable.
-Constitutional Safeguards
Judicial appointments devoid of party politics to maintain impartiality.
Fixed tenures for judges, offering security of office, and a rigorous removal procedure to ensure independence
and minimize political influence.
Financial independence: Salaries and allowances not subjected to legislative approval.
Appointment of judges
Political Influence
Political stakeholders heavily impact judicial appointments, shaping the interpretation of the Constitution and
application of laws.
Involvement of Council of Ministers, Governors, Chief Ministers, and the Chief Justice of India determines the
selection of judges.
Seniority Norms Deviation
Instances exist where seniority isn't the sole criterion for appointing Chief Justices, indicating occasional
departures from established conventions.
Evolution of Appointment Procedures
Shifts in the role of the Chief Justice, transitioning from a consultative function to actively recommending
candidates in consultation with senior judges.
Emphasis on collective decision-making among senior judges to nominate judicial candidates, fostering a collegial
approach.
Impact of Political Philosophy
Judges' personal ideologies significantly influence the judiciary's stance and the outcomes of legislative decisions,
showcasing the interplay between politics and judicial appointments.
Removal of judges
Stringent Removal Procedure
Judges can only be removed based on proven misbehavior or incapacity.
Removal requires a motion approved by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
The executive's role in appointments contrasts with the legislature's authority in removal, ensuring a balance of
power and judicial independence.
High Court
Can hear appeals from lower courts.
Can issue writs for restoring Fundamental Rights.
Can deal with cases within the jurisdiction of the State.
Exercises superintendence and control over courts below it.
District Court
Deals with cases arising in the District.
Considers appeals on decisions given by lower courts.
Decides cases involving serious criminal offences.
Subordinate Courts
Consider cases of civil and criminal nature
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has the authority to directly consider cases related to federal relations, bypassing lower
courts.
Acts as the primary arbitrator for disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves.
Interprets and applies constitutional provisions defining Union and State powers.
Sole authority in handling such cases, excluding High Courts and lower courts.
Writ Jurisdiction
Individuals can approach the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental rights are violated.
Issues special orders (writs) directing the executive to act or refrain from acting in specific ways.
Reviews lower courts' interpretations, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles.
Appellate Jurisdiction
High Courts hold appellate jurisdiction over decisions made by courts under their jurisdiction.
Enables review and reconsideration of decisions passed by lower courts.
Advisory Jurisdiction
The President of India can refer matters of public importance or those requiring constitutional interpretation to
the Supreme Court for advice.
Supreme Court's guidance isn't obligatory in such cases.
Provides legal opinions that might prevent unnecessary litigations and aid in suitable actions or legislative
changes.
Judicial Activism
Emergence of PIL & SAL
Historically, individuals could approach courts only if personally aggrieved.
Around 1979, a significant shift occurred when the court accepted cases not filed by the aggrieved but others
representing them.
Cases addressing public interest started gaining traction and were termed Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
Enhanced executive accountability and attempted to improve the fairness of the electoral system.
Introduced the requirement for candidates to disclose assets, income, and qualifications, empowering informed
electoral decisions.
The extensive PILs have burdened the courts with a multitude of cases, hampering their efficiency.
[Blurred Separation of Powers]
Judicial activism has somewhat encroached into areas traditionally under the executive and legislature.
Handling matters like pollution reduction, corruption investigations, or electoral reforms arguably fall under
executive purview.
[Delicate Balance of Powers]
Increased judicial intervention may strain the delicate balance among the three government branches.
The principle of democratic government depends on mutual respect for each branch's powers and jurisdictions.