Judiciary Class 11 Political Science

Why do we Need an Independent Judiciary?

• The principal role of the judiciary is to protect rule of law and ensure supremacy of law.
• It safeguards rights of the individual, settles disputes in accordance with the law, and ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship.
• In order to be able to do all this, it is necessary that the judiciary is independent of any political pressures.

Independence of Judiciary

• The other organs of the government like the executive and legislature must not restrain the functioning of the judiciary in such a way that it is unable to do justice.
• 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 to the people of the country.

Appointment of Judges

• The appointment of judges has never been free from political controversy.
• Council of Ministers, Governors, Chief Ministers, and the 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

• The removal of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is also extremely difficult.
• A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehavior or incapacity.
  • A motion containing the charges against the judge must be approved by a special majority in both Houses of the Parliament.
• While in making appointments, the executive plays a crucial role, the legislature has the powers of removal. This has ensured both a balance of power and independence of the judiciary.
• So far, only one case of removal of a judge of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before Parliament.

Structure of Judiciary

• 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: 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: Can grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or matter passed by any court in the territory of India.

Original Jurisdiction

• Original jurisdiction means cases that can be directly considered by the Supreme Court without going to the lower courts before that.
• Cases involving federal relations go directly to the Supreme Court.
• The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court establishes it as an umpire in all disputes regarding federal matters.
• In any federal country, legal disputes are bound to arise between the Union and the States and among the States themselves.
• The power to resolve such cases is entrusted to the Supreme Court of India.
• It is called original jurisdiction because the Supreme Court alone has the power to deal with such cases.
• Neither the High Courts nor the lower courts can deal with such cases.
• In this capacity, the Supreme Court not just settles disputes but also interprets the powers of Union and State governments as laid down in the Constitution.

Writ Jurisdiction

• Any individual, whose fundamental right has been violated, can directly move the Supreme Court for remedy.
• The Supreme Court can give special orders in the form of writs.
• The High Courts can also issue writs, but the persons whose rights are violated have the choice of either approaching the High Court or approaching the Supreme Court directly.
• Through such writs, the Court can give orders to the executive to act or not to act in a particular 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, the High Court must certify that the case is fit for appeal, that is to say that it involves a serious matter of interpretation of law or Constitution.
• In addition, in criminal cases, if the lower court has sentenced a person to death, then 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 an appeal is not allowed by the High Court.
• Appellate jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court will reconsider the case and the legal issues involved in it.
• If the Court thinks that the law or the Constitution has a different meaning from what the lower courts understood, the Supreme Court will change the ruling and provide a new interpretation of the provision involved.
• The High Courts also have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions given by courts below them.

Advisory Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court of India possesses advisory jurisdiction in addition to original and appellate jurisdiction.
• The President of India can refer any matter of public importance involving interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for advice.
• However, the Supreme Court is not bound to give advice on such matters, and the President is not bound to accept the advice.

Judicial Activism

• Judicial activism refers to the belief that courts can go beyond applying the law and consider the broader societal impact of their decisions.

PIL and Judicial Activism:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has become a key instrument of judicial activism.
• Through PIL, the court has expanded the scope of rights, allowing individuals, even if not directly aggrieved, to seek justice on behalf of the marginalized.
• Post-1980, courts have allowed public-spirited citizens, social organizations, and lawyers to file petitions for those unable to access the courts, enhancing judicial outreach.

Judiciary and Rights

• The Indian Constitution provides two methods for the Supreme Court to address rights violations:

  1. Issuing writs like Habeas Corpus, mandamus, etc., under Article 32.
  2. Declaring laws unconstitutional, making them non-operational if they violate fundamental rights.

• Judicial Review allows the Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of laws and strike down those that violate the Constitution.

• Though the term "judicial review" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the power is implied by the Court's authority to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Judiciary and Parliament

• Tensions between Parliament and the judiciary have arisen over issues such as:
  • The extent of the right to private property.
  • The power of Parliament to limit or abolish fundamental rights.
  • Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution.
  • Whether Parliament can pass laws that limit fundamental rights while enforcing directive principles.