Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Judiciary Notes

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

WHY DO WE NEED AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY?

Safeguarding Rule of Law


 Settling disputes impartially and ensuring equality before the law for all individuals regardless of social status or
background.
 Preventing the dominance of individual or group dictatorship by upholding democratic principles.
 Protecting individual rights and ensuring justice is served in accordance with the law.

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.

Unsuccessful Attempt to Remove a Judge


Justice V. Ramaswami Case
 Accused of misusing public funds during tenure as Chief Justice, leading to a high-profile inquiry.
 Findings by the Inquiry Commission strongly implicated Ramaswami for misconduct.

Parliamentary Removal Proceedings


 Initiation of a removal motion based on the inquiry's outcomes.
 Despite initial support, failure to garner adequate parliamentary backing for the judge's removal.

Challenges and Implications


 Influence of political dynamics in parliamentary decisions regarding judge removal.
 Highlighting the intricate complexities within the process of removing judges, emphasizing the challenges in
enforcing accountability within the judiciary.

Structure of the Judiciary


Pyramidal Structure
 Supreme Court: Apex of the judicial system with ultimate authority.
 High Courts: Intermediate level, below the Supreme Court, with authority over lower courts.
 District and Subordinate Courts: Lowest level handling local cases.

Supreme Court of India


 Its decisions are binding on all courts.
 Can transfer Judges of High Courts.
 Can move cases from any court to itself.
 Can transfer cases from one High Court to another.

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).

Early PIL Instances


Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar (1979)
 Highlighted the plight of under-trials who spent prolonged periods in jails awaiting trials.
 Set the precedent for PILs, where the court intervened in matters of public interest.

Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1980)


 Initiated by a prisoner's letter disclosing the inhumane treatment of inmates.
 Despite later cessation of considering letters, it contributed significantly to PILs' evolution.

Judicial Expansion of Rights


 PIL broadened the concept of rights, advocating for clean environments, quality living standards, etc., as societal
rights.
 Allowed individuals to seek justice when collective rights were violated.

Impact of PIL and Judicial Activism


[Accessibility to Justice]
 Granted groups and individuals greater access to the judicial system.
 Enabled representation for the underprivileged sections through public-spirited individuals and organizations.
[Political Impact]

 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.

Criticism and Challenges


[Court Overburdening]

 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.

Judiciary and Rights


Constitutional Safeguards for Fundamental Rights
 Article 32 in the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus,
Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto to safeguard fundamental rights.
 Article 226 confers similar writ powers on High Courts to protect the rights of individuals within their respective
jurisdictions.
 Article 13 allows the Supreme Court to invalidate any law found to be in contravention of fundamental rights,
rendering it non-operational.

Judicial Review: An Instrument of Constitutional Integrity


 Judicial review, an implicit power vested in the judiciary, allows the examination of laws for compliance with the
Constitution.
 This power extends to federal matters, enabling the Court to review laws that infringe on the Constitution's
distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.

The Influence of Writ Powers and Review Authority


 The combined authority of writ powers and judicial review enables the judiciary to interpret and uphold the
Constitution, ensuring the protection of citizens' rights.
 This authority extends beyond ordinary laws to include laws related to federalism, allowing the Court to resolve
disputes concerning the distribution of powers between the Center and the States.
Role of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and Judicial Activism
 PILs emerged as a transformative tool, enabling third parties to move the court on behalf of those unable to
approach directly.
 Judicial activism through PILs has broadened the scope of rights protection, addressing issues such as forced
labor, exploitation, and other social injustices.
 The judiciary's proactive role in entertaining PILs has empowered marginalized groups and ensured that rights
violations affecting the most vulnerable segments of society receive due attention.

Judiciary and Parliament


Judicial Activism in Constitutional Oversight
 The judiciary plays an active role in preventing Constitutional subversion, extending its oversight to areas initially
beyond the scope of judicial review, including powers of the President and Governors.
 Instances such as directing investigative agencies like the CBI in high-profile cases exemplify the judiciary's
activism and its intervention in executive agencies' functioning.

Conflict between Organizational Powers


 India's Constitution enshrines a principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances among the
three organs of government: Parliament, executive, and judiciary.
 Conflicts between the Parliament and judiciary, and executive and judiciary, have been recurring themes in Indian
politics due to their distinct functional domains.

Historical Conflicts: Right to Property and Parliament’s Amendment Power


 Early conflicts emerged over the Parliament's authority to curtail the right to property, initially resisting
restrictions aimed at facilitating land reforms.
 Attempts to amend the Constitution to abridge fundamental rights were contested by the judiciary, emphasizing
that even amendments couldn't compromise fundamental rights.

Kesavananda Bharati Case and its Ramifications


 The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 solidified the relationship between Parliament and judiciary,
introducing the concept of 'basic structure' within the Constitution.
 This ruling delineated the fundamental limits of parliamentary amendment powers by asserting that the basic
structure of the Constitution was inviolable, thereby shaping future legislative-judiciary conflicts.

Unresolved Issues and Potential Conflicts


 Remaining contentions between the two organs include whether the judiciary can regulate the functioning of
legislatures and whether those held accountable within the legislature can seek protection from the courts.
 Tensions arise when the judiciary criticizes legislative actions or when the legislature challenges judicial
functioning, highlighting the sensitivity of the balance between the branches of government in a democracy.

You might also like