Judiciary Class 11 Political Science

Supreme Court of India

Why do We Need an Independent Judiciary?

• The principal role of the judiciary is to protect rule of law and ensure the supremacy of law. It safeguards the rights of the individual, settle disputes by the law and ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship.
• To be able to do all this, the judiciary must be independent of any political pressures.

Independence of Judiciary

• Judiciary is independent of the other two organs of the state. i.e Legislature and Executive.
• The independence of the judiciary does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability.
• The other organs of the government should not interfere with the decision of the judiciary.
• Judges must be able to perform their functions without fear or favour.
• Judiciary is a part of the democratic political structure of the country.
• It is therefore accountable to the Constitution, to the democratic traditions and the People of the country.

Appointment of Judges

• The appointment of judges has never been free from political controversy.
• Council of Ministers, Governors and Chief Ministers and Chief Justice of India, all influence the process of judicial appointment.
• Over the years, a convention had developed whereby the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the Chief Justice of India.
• This convention was however broken twice.
  • In 1973 A. N. Ray was appointed as CJI superseding three senior Judges.
  • Justice M.H. Beg was appointed superseding Justice H.R. Khanna (1975).
• The other Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court are appointed by the President after ‘consulting’ the CJI.
• The final decisions in matters of appointment rested with the Council of Ministers.
• This matter came up before the Supreme Court again and again between 1982 and 1998.
• Finally, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Chief Justice should recommend names of persons to be appointed in consultation with four senior-most judges of the Court.
• Thus, the Supreme Court has established the principle of collegiality in making recommendations for appointments.

Removal of Judges

• It is extremely difficult to remove judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts from their positions.
• A judge can only be removed if proven to have engaged in misbehavior or incapacity. In order to remove a judge, a motion containing the charges against the judge must be approved by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
• This balance of power and independence of the judiciary is ensured by the fact that while the executive plays a crucial role in making appointments, the legislature holds the power of removal. 
• Only one case of a judge of the Supreme Court being considered for removal has arisen before Parliament so far.

Structure of the Judiciary

Supreme Court?

• The Supreme Court consists of thirty-one judges at present (one chief justice and thirty other judges). Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Bill of 2019 has added four judges to strength. It increased the judicial strength from 31 to 34, including the CJI. Originally, the strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other judges).
• The Parliament is authorised to regulate them.

High Court

• The Constitution Provides a high court for every state but even two or more states have a common court is provided by the parliament.
• The high court hears appeals from lower courts.
• May issue writs for restoring Fundamental Rights and can deal with cases within the jurisdiction of the State.
• The high court exercises superintendence and control over courts below it.
• At present, there are 24 courts in India. Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura are the new High Courts.
• The high court Consist of a chief justice and several other judges appointed by the president of India.

Delhi High Court

District Court

• The appointment posting and promotion of the district judges are done by the orders of the Governor of the state with the consultation of the High Court.
• This court deals with cases arising in the District. It 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.

What is the various jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

• Original: Settles disputes between Union and States and amongst States.
• Appellate: Tries appeals from lower courts in Civil, Criminal and Constitutional cases.
• Advisory: Advises the President on matters of public importance and law
• Writ: Can issue writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo warranto to protect the Fundamental Rights of the individual.
• Special Powers: Grant special leave to an appeal from any judgement or matter passed by any court in the territory of India.

Original Jurisdiction

• Original jurisdiction refers to cases that can be directly heard and decided by the Supreme Court without being referred to lower courts.
• Disputes related to federal relations are directly handled by the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction establishes it as an arbitrator in disputes related to federal matters.
• In any federal country, legal disputes may arise between the Union and the States or among the States themselves.
• The power to resolve such disputes is vested in the Supreme Court of India.
• The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such cases and neither the High Courts nor lower courts can deal with them.
• In this capacity, the Supreme Court not only settles disputes but also interprets the powers of the Union and State governments as laid down in the Constitution.

Writ Jurisdiction

• Any individual whose fundamental rights have been violated can directly approach the Supreme Court for a remedy.
• The Supreme Court can issue special orders in the form of writs.
• Although the High Courts can also issue writs, the aggrieved party has the option to approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly.
• Through writs, the Supreme Court can order the executive to act or refrain from acting in a certain way.

Appellate Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal.
• A person can appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the High Court.
• However, in criminal cases where the lower court has sentenced a person to death, an appeal can be made to the High Court or Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds the power to decide whether to admit appeals even when the High Court has not allowed them.
• Appellate jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court will reconsider the case and the legal issues involved in it.
• If the Supreme Court thinks that the lower courts have interpreted the law or the Constitution differently, it can change the ruling and provide a new interpretation of the provision in question.
• The High Courts also have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts.

Advisory Jurisdiction

• Besides original and appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of India also has advisory jurisdiction.
• This means that the President of India can refer any matter of public importance that involves the interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for advice.
• However, the Supreme Court is not bound to provide advice on such matters, and the President is not obliged to accept the advice given.

Article 137

• ... The Supreme Court has the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.

Article 144

• ... All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India are required to act in cooperation with the Supreme Court.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions.

How does PIL become the most important part of 'Judicial Activism?

• PIL has become the most important vehicle of judicial activism. Through the PIL, the court has expanded the idea of rights. It was felt by the courts that individuals as parts of the society must have the right to seek justice wherever such rights were violated.
• Through PIL and judicial activism of the post-1980 period, the judiciary has also shown readiness to take into consideration the rights of those sections that cannot easily approach the courts. For this purpose, the judiciary allowed public-spirited citizens, social organisations and lawyers to file petitions on behalf of the needy and the deprived.

Judiciary and Rights

• The Indian Constitution provides two methods for the Supreme Court to address the violation of rights. The first is through issuing writs such as Habeas Corpus and mandamus, and the second is by declaring a law unconstitutional and therefore non-operational.
• The power of judicial review is perhaps the most significant power held by the Supreme Court. Judicial review refers to the Court's ability to examine the constitutionality of any law and declare it unconstitutional if it is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
• Although the term "judicial review" is not mentioned in the Constitution, the fact that India has a written constitution and that the Supreme Court can strike down laws that infringe on fundamental rights implies the Court's power of judicial review.
• Together, the writ powers and review power of the Court make the judiciary very powerful, allowing it to interpret the Constitution and laws passed by the legislature. Additionally, the Court's practice of entertaining Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has further enhanced its ability to protect the rights of citizens.

Judiciary And Parliament

The dispute between the Parliament and the judiciary revolved around several issues including:

• The extent of the right to private property.
• The extent to which Parliament can restrict or abolish fundamental rights.
• The extent to which Parliament can amend the Constitution.
• The issue of whether Parliament has the authority to enact laws that limit fundamental rights while enforcing directive principles.