Independence of judiciary, a question of law
Independence of Judiciary: A Question of Law
1. What is Independence of Judiciary?
The Independence of Judiciary is a cornerstone of the rule of law and democracy. It means the judiciary must function free from any external pressures or influences—whether from the legislature, executive, political parties, or any other entities—so that it can deliver impartial and fair justice.
It safeguards citizens’ rights by ensuring fair adjudication.
It preserves the system of checks and balances among the three organs of government.
2. Constitutional Basis in India
Article 50 of the Directive Principles directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Articles 124 to 147: Deal with the Supreme Court and Articles 214 to 231 deal with High Courts.
Article 121 & 211: Prohibit courts from questioning the validity of legislative proceedings.
Article 235: Control over subordinate judiciary is vested in the High Courts but does not interfere with independence.
3. Elements of Judicial Independence
Institutional Independence
Judiciary as a body must be free from control by other branches.
Individual Independence
Judges must be free from influence in decision-making.
Financial Independence
Judiciary must have adequate resources, and the executive should not control finances to compromise independence.
Security of Tenure
Judges cannot be arbitrarily removed; they enjoy security of tenure.
Appointment and Transfer Procedures
Should be free from executive interference; the collegium system plays a role here.
4. Judicial Independence as a Question of Law
Independence of judiciary is a legal principle enforced by courts. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that:
Judicial independence is essential for the constitutional scheme.
It is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be altered by amendments.
Any law or action undermining this principle is void.
5. Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Independence
5.1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
(Judges’ Transfer Case)
The Supreme Court dealt with the transfer of judges and appointment process.
It emphasized that the judiciary should have primacy in appointments and transfers.
The collegium system (judges recommending appointments) was accepted as necessary to protect independence.
5.2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993)
(Second Judges Case)
The Supreme Court ruled that the executive cannot override the judiciary in judicial appointments.
The collegium system was evolved as the mechanism for appointing judges to ensure independence.
This system limits the executive’s power, securing judicial independence.
5.3. In re: Special Reference No.1 of 1998
(Third Judges Case)
The Supreme Court clarified the collegium's primacy in appointments and transfer of judges.
It held that consultation with the Chief Justice of India is binding.
The executive's role is limited to formal approval.
5.4. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court held that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy judicial independence.
5.5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Reinforced that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The judiciary has power to strike down laws or actions that threaten judicial independence.
5.6. All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992)
Held that judges must be free from any executive or legislative interference.
It emphasized security of tenure and protection from arbitrary removal.
6. Threats to Judicial Independence (Legal Perspective)
Executive interference in appointments and transfers.
Financial control by the executive can be used as leverage.
Threats or harassment of judges by political or other powerful interests.
Undue delay or denial of justice due to administrative failure.
Public criticism or media trial of judges, potentially undermining their impartiality.
The courts have laid down that such interferences violate Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and the basic structure doctrine.
7. Why is Judicial Independence a Question of Law?
Because it involves interpretation of constitutional provisions.
It concerns the jurisdiction and powers of courts to review laws and actions.
It relates to legal safeguards against arbitrary removal or interference.
Courts enforce judicial independence by judicial review and can declare laws or executive actions null and void if they threaten independence.
8. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Law Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Foundation | Articles 50, 124-147; Directive Principles | Keshavananda Bharati |
| Appointment & Transfer | Collegium system to limit executive interference | S.P. Gupta; Second & Third Judges Cases |
| Security of Tenure | Judges cannot be removed arbitrarily | All India Judges Association |
| Judicial Review | Courts can strike down laws/actions threatening independence | L. Chandra Kumar |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Judicial independence part of basic structure | Keshavananda Bharati |
9. Conclusion
The Independence of Judiciary is a fundamental constitutional principle and a legal necessity to uphold democracy and the rule of law in India. It is enshrined as a part of the basic structure and has been reaffirmed through various judicial pronouncements.
Any attempt to undermine it is treated as unconstitutional and void, making it not just a political or philosophical idea but a critical question of law enforceable by the judiciary itself.
RELATED Blog
0 comments