NCERT Summary Judiciary - 1 - Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Introduction

• Many times, courts are seen only as arbitrators in disputes between individuals or private parties. Besides deciding private disputes, the judiciary also performs certain political and constitutional functions.
• Judiciary is an important organ of government. The Supreme Court of India is among the most powerful constitutional courts in the world. Since 1950 the judiciary has played a key role in interpreting and protecting the Constitution.

Why do we need an Independent Judiciary?

• In any society disputes arise between individuals, between groups, and between persons or groups and the state. Such disputes must be settled by an independent body according to the principle of rule of law.
• The idea of rule of law implies that every person-rich or poor, male or female, higher or lower caste-must be subject to the same law.
• The principal role of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law and to ensure the supremacy of law. It safeguards individual rights, settles disputes according to law, and prevents democracy from being subverted by individual or group dictatorship. To perform these functions effectively, the judiciary must be free from improper political pressures.

Independence of the Judiciary

Independence of the judiciary means that the judiciary should be able to function without undue interference from the executive or the legislature. Practically, this includes the following:

• (i) Other organs of government should not restrain the judiciary so as to prevent it from doing justice.
• (ii) Other organs should not interfere with judicial decisions.
• (iii) Judges must be able to perform their duties without fear or favour.

• Independence does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability. The judiciary remains part of the democratic political structure and is accountable to the Constitution, democratic traditions and, ultimately, the people.
• The Constitution embodies several safeguards to ensure judicial independence. Appointments are based on legal experience and competence rather than party politics. Judges have a fixed tenure and hold office until they reach the prescribed retirement age; removal is possible only in exceptional circumstances through a prescribed procedure.
• Security of tenure reduces the likelihood of judges acting under fear or favour. The Constitution prescribes a rigorous removal procedure so that judges cannot be removed for political reasons.
• The judiciary enjoys financial independence. Salaries and allowances of judges are protected so that the judiciary does not become financially dependent on the executive or legislature. The courts also have the power to punish for contempt, which functions as protection against unfair attacks that may undermine judicial independence.
• Members of Parliament are restricted from discussing a judge's conduct except when impeachment proceedings are in progress. This rule further insulates judges from political pressures.

Appointment of Judges

• The appointment of judges has often been a matter of political controversy. Who occupies the bench affects how the Constitution and laws are interpreted. The political philosophy and judicial style of judges-whether activist or restrained-can influence the fate of legislation and public policy.
• A convention developed that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court would normally be appointed as the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This convention was broken on two notable occasions: in 1973 when A. N. Ray was appointed CJI superseding three senior judges, and in 1975 when Justice M. H. Beg was appointed superseding Justice H. R. Khanna.
• Formally, other judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts are appointed by the President after 'consulting' the Chief Justice of India. Historically this meant the executive and Council of Ministers had substantial influence in appointments.
• Between 1982 and 1998 the Supreme Court reconsidered the executive's and the Chief Justice's roles in appointments. Over a sequence of cases, the Court moved from viewing the CJI's role as purely consultative to treating the CJI's opinion as decisive in practice, and later developed the principle of collegiality.
• Under the collegium practice the CJI recommends names for appointment in consultation with a group of senior Supreme Court judges (typically the four senior-most judges). Consequently, the collective view of senior judges carries significant weight in judicial appointments, alongside the executive's role.

Removal of Judges

• Removal of judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts is deliberately difficult. A judge can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
• A motion containing specific charges must be passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Because of this high threshold, removal requires broad consensus among legislators.
• This division of functions-executive influence in appointment and parliamentary power of removal-creates checks and balances intended to protect judicial independence while preserving accountability.
• Attempts to remove judges have been rare and difficult to succeed. In one notable impeachment motion, the motion secured the required two-thirds majority of members present and voting but failed to obtain the support of the majority of the total membership of the House and therefore did not result in removal.

Structure of the Judiciary

• The Constitution provides for a single integrated judicial system for the Union and the States. India does not have two separate judicial hierarchies for the Union and the States.
• The judiciary is organised in a pyramidal structure: the Supreme Court at the top, High Courts below it, and district and subordinate courts at the base. Lower courts function under the supervisory jurisdiction of the higher courts.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

• The powers and responsibilities of the Supreme Court of India are defined by the Constitution. The Court exercises different kinds of jurisdiction depending on the nature of the matter.
• Its jurisdiction includes original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, advisory jurisdiction (when consulted by the President) and jurisdiction to issue special remedies such as writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Original Jurisdiction

• Original jurisdiction denotes cases that can be instituted directly in the Supreme Court without prior hearing in lower courts. In India, cases involving disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between States, are normally filed directly in the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction establishes it as the umpire in federal disputes. Such jurisdiction enables the Court to settle questions of constitutional interpretation concerning the powers of the Union and the States.
• Original jurisdiction is exclusive for these federal disputes: High Courts and lower courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over such matters.

Example to show Original Jurisdiction

• (i) Unsuccessful Attempt to Remove a Judge
  • In 1991 the first-ever motion to remove a Supreme Court Justice was signed by 108 members of Parliament. Justice V. Ramaswamy, who had served earlier as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was accused of misappropriating funds.
  • In 1992 a high-profile inquiry commission consisting of Supreme Court judges found Justice Ramaswamy guilty of willful misuse of office, use of public funds for private purposes, and disregard of statutory rules while serving as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana. Despite this, the parliamentary motion to remove him did not succeed. Although the motion obtained the required two-thirds majority among those present and voting, it failed to secure the support of one-half of the total strength of the House because a major party abstained from voting.

Writ Jurisdiction

• Any individual whose fundamental rights are violated may directly approach the Supreme Court seeking remedy. The Court can issue writs-such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto-to enforce rights or ensure lawful exercise of power by public authorities.
• High Courts also have writ jurisdiction. An aggrieved person has the choice of approaching either the appropriate High Court or the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Through writs the courts can direct the executive to act or refrain from acting in specified ways, thereby ensuring legal protection of rights and proper functioning of public administration.