Independence of Judiciary

Individual judges and the judiciary as a whole must be impartial and independent of all external forces, as well as each other, for persons who appear before them and the general public to have trust that their cases will be judged fairly and in line with the law. They must be free of any inappropriate influence when performing their judicial duties. Influence might come from a variety of places. It might be caused by unlawful executive or legislative pressure, individual plaintiffs, specific pressure groups, the media, self-interest, or other judges, particularly more senior judges.

What is meant by the independence of the judiciary?

Montesquieu, the famed French philosopher, was the first political philosopher to advocate for an independent court. He believed in the separation of powers principle, which states that the three parts of government—legislature, executive, and judiciary—each have their own set of powers. His thesis wowed the founding fathers of the United States of America. 

With the adoption of the Act of Settlement in England and Wales in 1701, the essential principle of judicial independence was born. By providing that High Court Judges and Lords Justices of Appeal keep office during good behaviour, this act explicitly recognised the principles of judicial tenure security. Before a judge could be dismissed, appropriate and official processes had to be in place.

However, the judiciary in the United States and India has been given the authority of judicial review. They have the power to declare legislation approved by the legislature unlawful and overturn it. In India, a statute is only struck down by the Supreme Court if it breaches the constitution’s core framework. 

Independence Of Judiciary In India

The independence of the judiciary must be evaluated within the framework of the Indian Constitution, not as an a priori idea. The goal is to guarantee that adjudication is free of external or governmental restrictions and that the independence of the judiciary is limited to the adjudicatory powers of courts or tribunals under the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution uniquely gives the judiciary a dignified and vital role.

The independence of the judiciary is imbibed in the letters of numerous articles of the Constitution of India, although there is no stated provision in the constitution. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in S.P. Gupta v Union of India: AIR 1982 SC 149, the constitution’s core elements of judiciary independence and the rule of law cannot be repealed even by constitutional modifications.

Indian constitution and judiciary

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, upon which all other laws are based and to which they must adhere. It is the source of all governmental powers and their various organs, and they must be used following the criteria and limitations outlined in it. The constitution establishes a parliamentary system of government in which the administration and legislature are not strictly separated, but there is a clear distinction between them and the judiciary. The Indian Constitution mandates the government to “separate the judiciary from the executive in the state’s public services.”

In accord with both the ideas of constitutional and Parliamentary sovereignty, India’s constitution uses a variety of mechanisms to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have extensive provisions in place to ensure their independence.

While entering the Supreme Court and the High Courts, judges must swear that they would faithfully do their responsibilities without fear, favour, love, or ill-will and that they will protect India’s constitution and laws. This pledge implicitly recognises the notion of constitutional sovereignty.

Independence of judiciary and selection of judges

In India, the procedure of appointing judges also protects the independence of the judiciary. The President appoints the justices of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The President of India is required under the Indian constitution to make appointments in conjunction with the highest judicial authorities. Of course, he listens to the Cabinet’s suggestions. The constitution also specifies the criteria required for such positions. 

The Tenure of Judges is guaranteed under the constitution. Judges in the Supreme Court and the High Courts serve “during good conduct,” not at the President’s pleasure, as other high-ranking government officials do. They are not subject to the President’s whims. They can only be removed from office if they are impeached. On a report by both Houses of Parliament backed by a special majority, a judge can be dismissed for proven misconduct or incompetence.

Judges’ salaries and allowances are paid from the Indian Consolidated Fund. Furthermore, even in a financial emergency, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot have their salaries and allowances lowered during their term. Supreme Court justices must retire at 65, whereas High Court judges must retire at 62. Judges with such long tenure can work impartially and independently.

Conclusion

The constitution stipulates the existence of the independence of the judiciary. For the sake of fair justice, the judiciary’s independence is critical. The legislative and the administration should not interfere with the judiciary’s operations for it to render a ruling that seems to be reasonable. There may be an element of prejudice on the part of the judges in making a fair judgement in the instance of intervention. Other than that, it’s challenging to think of a method to make Indian courts more self-sufficient and keep them out of the influence of the other two institutions.