Judiciary

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:

1. Rule of Law: Laws must be applied uniformly, as demonstrated in the Keshavananda Bharati case, which upheld the Constitution’s basic structure.
2. Protection of Rights: The judiciary safeguards citizens’ rights, as seen in the Habeas Corpus case during India’s Emergency.
3. Fair Trials: The judiciary ensures fair trials, exemplified by the Nirbhaya case, despite public pressure.
4. Transparency: Independent judges promote transparency, free from external influences.
5. Accountability: An independent judiciary holds power accountable, illustrated by the NJAC case.
6. Conflict Resolution: The judiciary resolves disputes effectively, as shown by the Ayodhya Verdict.
7. Judicial Review: The judiciary’s role in reviewing laws is crucial, as seen in the decriminalization of Section 377, upholding constitutional values.
8. 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.

Model Answer

Introduction

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, aimed to reform the appointment process of judges in the higher judiciary of India. However, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015).

Supreme Court’s Judgment

In October 2015, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority verdict, struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, emphasizing the need to protect judicial independence.

Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability

1. Composition of NJAC: Critics argued that the inclusion of executive members and eminent persons in the NJAC undermined judicial independence. Proponents contended that this composition could enhance transparency and diversity in appointments, addressing the opaque nature of the collegium system .
2. Judicial Independence: The Court underscored the necessity of safeguarding judicial independence. Critics assert that the Court did not fully consider how the NJAC could improve transparency and accountability in the appointment process, which are significant concerns in the existing system .
3. Concentration of Power: Supporters of the NJAC argued that including non-judicial members would prevent the concentration of power within the judiciary. In contrast, critics feared that the NJAC might centralize power among the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and two senior-most judges, jeopardizing judicial independence .
4. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court held that the NJAC Act violated the basic structure doctrine, essential for maintaining the Constitution’s core features. Critics argue that this doctrine should not impede necessary reforms, especially given the longstanding criticisms of the collegium system .
5. Arbitrary Veto Power: The NJAC’s provision allowing any two members to block an appointment was deemed arbitrary by the Court. Critics contend that this was intended to foster consensus and that the Court’s concerns were based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence .

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s concerns about judicial independence are legitimate, critics argue that the NJAC Act represented a potential opportunity for reform that could have preserved judicial integrity while enhancing accountability. The reinstatement of the collegium system, criticized for its lack of transparency, left significant questions about future judicial appointments unresolved.