Independence of Judiciary in India

The concept of an independent judiciary is a vital pillar of any democratic system. In India, it has evolved to become a safeguard of fundamental rights, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over arbitrary actions by the executive and legislature. The judiciary, through its checks and balances, ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of any one branch of government. 

The Concept of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence means that the judiciary should be free from external pressures or influences, particularly from the executive and legislature. It ensures that judges can make decisions impartially based on the law and facts, without fear of retribution or external control. In India, judicial independence is vital as it safeguards democracy, protects human rights, and upholds the constitutional values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

In India, judicial independence is rooted in the doctrine of the separation of powers, which divides the government into three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The Constitution of India establishes this separation of powers to prevent any one branch from having unchecked authority. 

While the legislature is tasked with making laws and the executive is responsible for implementing them, the judiciary ensures that the laws comply with the Constitution and that they are interpreted and enforced impartially.

The judiciary’s role is to act as a check on the power of both the executive and legislature. It ensures that no law or action contravenes the fundamental rights of the citizens or violates constitutional provisions. Through judicial review, the judiciary can strike down laws or government actions that are unconstitutional.

Constitutional Framework for Judicial Independence

The Constitution of India provides for judicial independence through several provisions that ensure the autonomy of the judiciary from the executive and legislature. These provisions include the appointment and removal of judges, the security of tenure, the powers of the judiciary, and the financial independence of the judicial system.

Separation of Powers

Article 50 of the Constitution mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The Constitution provides that the judiciary should function independently of the executive, ensuring that decisions are made solely based on legal reasoning and constitutional principles. 

The principle of separation of powers is fundamental to the functioning of India’s democracy, as it prevents the concentration of power in one branch and ensures a system of checks and balances.

Appointment and Tenure of Judges

One of the critical aspects of judicial independence is the process of judicial appointments. The appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, is made by the President of India based on the recommendation of the Collegium system. 

The Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a group of senior judges of the Supreme Court. This system was established through judicial precedents, including the Second Judges Case (1993), where the Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice and the Collegium must have a dominant role in the selection of judges.

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have security of tenure. As per Article 124(2) and Article 217, judges are appointed until the age of 65 years (for Supreme Court judges) and 62 years (for High Court judges). Judges cannot be removed from office except through impeachment by the Parliament, which ensures that their independence is not compromised by political pressures. 

Furthermore, the process of removing a judge is lengthy and difficult, requiring a high threshold of evidence to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive. The Indian judiciary has consistently used this power to uphold the Constitution and protect fundamental rights. 

Under Article 13 of the Constitution, the judiciary has the authority to strike down any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution. This power of judicial review is essential to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and ensure that the actions of the legislature and executive are in accordance with constitutional provisions.

The judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution was most notably demonstrated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court established the “basic structure doctrine.” The Court held that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental features of the Constitution, thus ensuring that no branch of government could undermine constitutional values.

Immunity and Privileges

To ensure that the judiciary remains free from external pressures, judges are granted certain immunities and privileges. For example, judges cannot be personally sued for actions taken in the course of their duties. This immunity allows judges to make decisions without fear of personal retribution. Furthermore, judges are entitled to financial autonomy to manage the judiciary’s budgetary needs, which reduces the possibility of external influence.

Financial Independence

The financial independence of the judiciary is another critical aspect of judicial autonomy. The judiciary in India is funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, and the allocation of funds for the judicial system is managed independently of the executive. This ensures that the judiciary is not dependent on the executive for its functioning. The judiciary also has control over its own budget, which further enhances its independence.

Judicial Independence in Landmark Cases

One of the most significant cases in asserting judicial independence was Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, guilty of electoral malpractice. The decision marked a bold stance against the executive, ensuring that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law. This case highlighted the judiciary’s role in keeping the executive in check and maintaining democratic principles.

Another landmark case was Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. The NJAC sought to place control over the appointment of judges in the hands of the executive. The Court held that this would undermine the independence of the judiciary and ruled that the Collegium system should continue. This decision reinforced the importance of judicial independence in the judicial appointment process.

Challenges to Judicial Independence

Despite the constitutional safeguards, judicial independence in India faces several challenges. Political pressure, judicial corruption, lack of transparency in judicial appointments, and inadequate security for judges are some of the major threats to the independence of the judiciary.

Political Pressure

The judiciary’s independence is often challenged by political pressures, especially when it comes to high-profile cases. Governments may attempt to influence court decisions, either directly or indirectly, to further their political interests. While the judiciary in India has largely managed to maintain its independence, there have been instances where external pressures have compromised its functioning.

Judicial Corruption

Judicial corruption is another significant challenge that affects the credibility and independence of the judiciary. Instances of bribery and corruption within the judicial system undermine public trust and weaken the judiciary’s authority. The Indian government has taken steps to address judicial corruption, such as setting up the National Judicial Appointments Commission and implementing measures for accountability.

Lack of Transparency in Judicial Appointments

The process of judicial appointments, while carried out by the Collegium, has been criticized for its lack of transparency. There have been calls for reforms in the Collegium system to ensure that judicial appointments are based on merit rather than personal connections or political affiliations. Some legal experts argue that the system needs to be more transparent to ensure that the judiciary remains free from external influences.

Inadequate Security for Judges

Judges in India face threats to their safety, particularly when dealing with sensitive or controversial cases. Judges who rule against powerful individuals or groups may be subject to threats or even physical harm. The safety of judges is a critical issue that needs immediate attention, as it directly impacts their ability to carry out their duties impartially.

Conclusion

Judicial independence is the bedrock of India’s democracy. The judiciary, through its role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of citizens’ rights, ensures that the executive and legislature do not overstep their constitutional boundaries. While the judiciary in India is granted significant powers and protections under the Constitution, it faces several challenges, including political pressures, corruption, and threats to the safety of judges.

Researchers:

• Tazeen Ahmed is a student at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia
• Aafreen Naaz is a student at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal