The Significance of Justice and the Judiciary in the Indian Constitution
The framers of the Indian Constitution recognized the importance of justice and the judiciary within a democratic system and highlighted this in the Constitution.
Firstly, the Preamble to the Constitution states that the goal of the Indian Republic is to secure justice, liberty, and equality for all its citizens. Notably, when listing these values in the Preamble, priority was given to justice over the other two. Justice (social, economic, and political) appears first, followed by liberty and equality in that specific order.
Secondly, to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights, Article 32 recognizes the right of citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly as a fundamental right in itself. This is known as the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies.’ Dr. Ambedkar described this right as the “soul of the Constitution,” as all other fundamental rights would be rendered meaningless without it.
What measures have been taken to safeguard
judicial independence in India?
The measures adopted to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in India stem from two sources:
A. Measures taken by the judiciary itself to protect its independence
Firstly, the Supreme Court of India has, in several judgments—such as the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and the Minerva Mills case (1980)—held that judicial independence, the separation of powers, and judicial review constitute part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Consequently, Parliament cannot amend these features.
Secondly, to protect judicial independence, the Supreme Court implemented the “Collegium system” for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This system was first introduced through the Second Judges Case (1993) and subsequently modified by the Third Judges Case (1998). Following this amendment, the Collegium for the appointment of Supreme Court judges comprises the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges, while the Collegium for the appointment and transfer of High Court judges consists of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges.
Judges are appointed by the President solely based on the Collegium’s recommendation. The government may decline the recommendation once, but if the Collegium reiterates the same recommendation, the government is bound to accept it.
Thus, through the Collegium system, the judiciary remains independent of the executive regarding appointments.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court declares constitutional amendments that interfere with judicial independence to be invalid. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which had provided for the establishment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission under Article 124. This case is known as the ‘Fourth Judges Case’.
B. Measures taken in the Indian Constitution to ensure judicial independence
The Constitution of India contains the following provisions to safeguard judicial independence:
1. Article 124 outlines a rigorous procedure for the removal of Supreme Court judges. Judges can be removed only on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity (mental or physical) through a motion passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. An inquiry into ‘proved misbehavior’ is conducted by a three-member committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, comprising the following judicial members:
(i) A Supreme Court Judge – Chairperson
(ii) A High Court Chief Justice – Member
(iii) An eminent jurist – Member
2. Under Article 125, the salaries and allowances of judges cannot be reduced during their tenure. Under Article 112, the entire expenditure of the Supreme Court is declared as ‘charged’ upon the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, Parliament cannot reduce them either; however, the President may order a reduction in their salaries during a financial emergency.
3. Under Article 129, the Supreme Court is a ‘Court of Record’ and possesses the authority to punish for contempt of itself. The procedure regarding contempt is outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under Section 12 of this Act, a person found guilty of contempt may be punished with imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both.
4. According to Article 124(7), a Supreme Court judge cannot practice law before any court or authority in India after retirement.
5. Under Article 145, the Supreme Court has the authority to frame rules regarding its own procedures; there is no government interference in this matter.
6. Under Article 146, the Supreme Court has the authority to appoint and dismiss its officers and staff without government interference.
In summary, efforts have been made to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in India through the aforementioned judicial and constitutional measures. Similar provisions exist to ensure the independence of the High Courts.
Image Courtesy: Law Chakra
Leave a Reply