Analyze the Indian judiciary’s appointment and removal procedures for judges. Examine the President’s, the executive branch, and the judiciary’s own involvement in the appointment and removal of judges. Talk about the importance of judicial independence and India’s constitutional protections for it.
The process of appointment and removal of judges in the Indian judiciary involves the following:
Appointment of Judges:
The President of India appoints the Chief Justice of India and the other judges of the Supreme Court.
The appointment of High Court judges is made by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the respective state.
The process of judicial appointments is largely dominated by the judiciary itself through the collegium system, where a collective decision is made by the Chief Justice and a panel of senior-most judges.
The executive branch, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, plays a role in the appointment process by forwarding recommendations and nominations to the collegium.
Removal of Judges:
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed from office only through the process of impeachment by the Parliament.
The grounds for impeachment are limited to “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”
The impeachment process involves a two-stage process in both the Houses of Parliament, with a high threshold of a two-thirds majority vote in each House for the removal of a judge.
The executive branch, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, initiates the impeachment process, which is then deliberated upon by the Parliament.
Judicial Independence and Constitutional Safeguards:
The Constitution of India has established several safeguards to ensure the independence of the judiciary, such as:
Secure tenure of judges, with retirement ages specified for the Supreme Court (65 years) and High Courts (62 years).
Prohibition on the executive from interfering with the functioning of the judiciary.
Guaranteed salaries and allowances for judges, protected from reduction.
Restrictions on post-retirement employment of judges to prevent executive influence.
The principle of judicial independence is considered a vital feature of the Indian constitutional framework, as it ensures the impartial and unbiased administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has also developed the “basic structure” doctrine, which limits the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a way that undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Comparative Perspective:
In other federal democracies, the processes of judicial appointments and removals vary:
United States: The President nominates federal judges, who are then confirmed by the Senate, with the Supreme Court having the power to review the constitutionality of laws.
Germany: The selection of judges involves a collaborative process between the federal and state governments, with various safeguards for judicial independence.
Australia: Judges are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the federal government, with formal consultations with the state governments.
The Indian model of judicial appointments and removals, with its emphasis on the collegium system and the limited role of the executive, is aimed at preserving the independence of the judiciary. However, the process has been the subject of extensive debates and reforms, as the judiciary seeks to balance its autonomy with the need for accountability and transparency.