Model Answer Introduction Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is essential for the functioning of a democracy. It ensures that the judiciary operates autonomously and impartially, free from interference by other branches of government. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution explicitly mRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is essential for the functioning of a democracy. It ensures that the judiciary operates autonomously and impartially, free from interference by other branches of government. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution explicitly mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, which protects human rights and upholds the rule of law, foundational elements of a democratic society.
Body
Constitutional Provisions Supporting Judicial Independence
Several articles in the Indian Constitution reinforce judicial independence:
- Article 124 outlines the appointment of Supreme Court judges, emphasizing merit-based selection.
- Articles 214 and 215 govern High Courts, ensuring the independence of judges.
- Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, highlighted in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine.
- Articles 121 and 211 restrict legislative discussion on judges’ conduct, further safeguarding judicial independence.
- Articles 125 and 221 protect judges’ salaries from post-appointment alterations, guarding against financial pressures.
- Articles 32 and 226 empower judicial review, exemplified by the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to strike down the NJAC Act, maintaining judicial autonomy.
- Judges enjoy security of tenure until the age of retirement, as per Articles 124 and 217, allowing unbiased adjudication.
Importance of Judicial Independence in Democracy
Judicial independence is vital for several reasons:
- Rule of Law: Laws must be applied uniformly, as demonstrated in the Keshavananda Bharati case, which upheld the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Protection of Rights: The judiciary safeguards citizens’ rights, as seen in the Habeas Corpus case during India’s Emergency.
- Fair Trials: The judiciary ensures fair trials, exemplified by the Nirbhaya case, despite public pressure.
- Transparency: Independent judges promote transparency, free from external influences.
- Accountability: An independent judiciary holds power accountable, illustrated by the NJAC case.
- Conflict Resolution: The judiciary resolves disputes effectively, as shown by the Ayodhya Verdict.
- Judicial Review: The judiciary’s role in reviewing laws is crucial, as seen in the decriminalization of Section 377, upholding constitutional values.
- Public Faith: An independent judiciary fosters public trust, highlighted by the Right to Privacy judgment.
Conclusion
Strengthening judicial independence is critical for nurturing democracy. It is through collaborative efforts and active participation from all stakeholders that a just, equitable, and resilient society can be built.
See less
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines thiRead more
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines this principle to the effect of saying that ‘every contract to do an impossible act is void’. The contract becomes frustrated when there is an event that has the affect of making the purpose of the contract impossible, unlawful or totally unexpected by both the parties to the contract.
The most famous of these are the Indian case Of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954). In this case, the role of Supreme court referred to the decision making under the rule of frustration that Say the contract becomes frustrated where there is a condition that went to the root of the contract and made its performance impossible. In the case, it is shown that the building land contract was interrupted due to the governmental orders during the Second World War. That is why the Courts ruled that due to the war related restriction the parties were unable to perform their obligations under the contract and thus, the contract was frustrated.
Disaffection cannot be recorded where the issue of the challenge in performance is temporal or where the event was anticipated. It is also not allowed where the contract has provided for how particular incidences should be handled in as much as they are contingencies.
See less