Here is your speech on Independence of Judiciary in India:
In our democratic polity, the supreme power of state is shared among the three principal organs, namely, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each of the functionaries is independent and supreme within its allotted sphere and none is superior to the other. This is the “Doctrine of Separation of Power”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Legislative powers are given to Parliament; Administrative powers are given to the executive. Above all, the judiciary is given interpreting power, it is also true that Parliament is given the legislative power, relating to the Supreme Court, but in our India such power of Parliament do not affect on the independence of the Supreme Court.
The makers of the constitution tried their best to secure independence of judiciary from the hands of legislature and executive. They have provided several guards to protect the judiciary from the politicians and executives. Independence of judiciary is the basic feature of our constitution.
Image Source: dekhnews.com
Judiciary in India becomes the most prominent and outstanding wing of the constitutional system for fulfilling the mandate of the constitution. The judiciary has to take up a positive and creative function in securing socio-economic justice to the people in India.
In our constitution judiciary is in no way less than that of other functionaries. And as per our constitution the main role of the judiciary is to carry out the constitutional message, and so if council of ministers both at the central and state level, as the case may be, tries to play a major role in its self-acclaimed absolute supremacy in selecting and appointing the judges.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Paying no attention to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India or they may desire to appoint only those, who share their policy performance or show affiliation to their political philosophy or exhibit affinity to their ideologies is not possible in India.
Though it is also true that such practices are tried many times in India but at every time such practices become failure because of concept of separation of judiciary from the executive. As enumerated in Article 50 (Part IV) which explains that state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the state and because of this article the cherished concept of independence of judiciary untouched by the executive. There are several provisions for the maintenance of independence of judiciary. They are as follows:
(1) According to Article 124, the appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is not left to the whims of the executive. But the President shall appoint them after consultation of the Chief Justice of S.C. and the Chief Justice plays an important and key role in the appointment of judges. According to Article 146 S.C. is autonomous. The Chief Justice of the S.C. and in section 129 the Chief Justice of H.C. is empowered to appoint officers and servants of High Court.
According to Article 129 S.C. and Article 215 H.C. are empowered respectively with the power to punish for their contempt and also they are courts of records.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The main important provision in our constitution to protect independence of judiciary enumerated in Article 121 and in Article 211 S.C. and H.C. respectively provide that no discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any judge of the S.C. or of a H.C. in the discharge of his duties in the Parliament and state legislature concerned.
The Parliament is empowered in India to bring impeachment motion against a judge on the allegation of corruption, infirmity to hold the post as judge and also for the removal of such judge after address to President but it is very elaborate, lengthy and standard procedure.
This lengthy unusual motion was brought first time in the history of S.C. of India in the case of Justice Ramaswamy but thereafter, Justice Ramaswamy resigned to his post voluntarily. Ordinarily, when once a judge is appointed he shall not be removed until he attains the age of 65 years, the salaries, allowances and pension of the judges of the S.C. and H.C. are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and Consolidated Fund of State respectively. And so constitution can keep S.C. and H.C. outside the political controversy, authority and influence to maintain its independence.
The working of judiciary in India form many years proved that on the while it has maintained its independence; the H.C. too followed the S.C. The independence and dignity has been proved in several cases.
(1) In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (Election Case), AIR 1975 SC 2299
In this case, though Smt. Indira Gandhi was a Prime Minister, she had to bow her head before judiciary.
In this case S.C. struck down clause 4 of Article 329-A introduced by the constitution (Thirty ninth Amendment Act, 1975) and S.C. set aside the judgment of the Allahabad H.C. and stands for good example of independence of judiciary.
Again, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (Judges transfer case) (AIR 1982 SC Ke 9) in this case new principle emerged by S.C. court, it is held that power of transfer of judges must be exercised in public interest and any person can file a writ petition under Article 32 pertaining of Public Interest (and principle of locus standi relaxed) because by Public Interest Litigations the independence of judiciary is saved, further justice can reach to the needy and poor people.
Supreme Court observed that,
“The principle of independence of judiciary is not an abstract conception but it is a living faith which derives its inspiration from the constitutional charter and its nourishment and sustenance from the constitutional values. S.C. remarked that “Independence of the judiciary is not genuflexion, nor is it opposition to every proposition of Government it is neither judiciary made to opposition measure nor Government is pleasure.”
Another important case on this issue is Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 441, AIR 1994 SC 268
(Appointment and Transfer of Judges Case)
In this case S.C. discussed in detail and gave judgment by 7 to 2 majority on 6.10.1993, and overruled the judgment given in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, and laid down a principle that the President cannot appoint or transfer a judge without the consent of the Chief Justice of India and Initiation of the proposal for appointment in the case of the S.C. must be by the Chief Justice of India, and in the case of High Court by the Chief Justice of that H.C. and there were no interference of any legislature in this above case.
S.C. while discussing the concept of independence of higher or superior judiciary and thereby highlighted and laid stress on the basic principle and values underlying Article 50 in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.
From the foregoing discussion it is finally concluded that the judiciary in India is independent and S.C. of Indian Union has more power than any S.C. in any part of the world. And in India with the vast changing concept of judicial activism of judiciary becomes more powerful.
It is not possible for corrupt, deviant politicians to appoint their own influenced judges to fulfil their own whims. And it is not a bluff to say that our democracy is smooth working, because of independence of judiciary. In India it is the responsibility of judiciary to keep a vigilant watch over the functioning of democracy in accordance with the dictates, directives and imperative commands of the constitution by checking excessive authority of other constitutional functionaries. Beyond the scope of the constitution and also rear. Its own independence to excludes any acts of Legislatures executives.
The Indian constitution is a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of transforming a medieval hierarchical society into a modern democracy and provided for distribution of power to ensure that one organ of the Government does not trench on the constitutional power of other organs. Because of these concepts of constitution the existence of a judicial system is free from external as well as internal pressures.
The concept of independence of the judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundations on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity.
It is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the state within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective and it is proved its worth.