Independence of Judiciary

Judicial independence ensures the judiciary operates free from undue influence or control by other branches of government or external forces, allowing judges to make impartial decisions based on law and facts. 

Definition:

Judicial independence means the judiciary, including individual judges and the court system as a whole, is free from external pressures or influences, particularly from the executive and legislative branches. 

Importance:

Upholding the Rule of Law: An independent judiciary is crucial for ensuring that laws are applied fairly and impartially, and that everyone is subject to the law, regardless of their position or power. 
Protecting Citizens' Rights: An independent judiciary can safeguard citizens' rights by acting as a check on the power of the government and other actors. 
Maintaining Public Trust: Public confidence in the justice system is essential, and this is undermined when the judiciary is perceived as being under the influence of other branches of government or external forces. 

Key Elements:

Security of Tenure: Judges should have secure tenure, meaning they cannot be removed from office for political reasons or for expressing unpopular opinions. 
Financial Autonomy: The judiciary should have control over its budget and resources, free from undue interference from the executive branch. 
Judicial Review: The power of judicial review, where the judiciary can review the constitutionality of laws and actions of other branches of government, is a key element of judicial independence. 
Impartiality: Judges must be impartial and free from bias or prejudice when making decisions. 
Freedom from External Pressure: Judges should be free from undue influence or pressure from any source, including the media, political parties, or powerful individuals. 

Examples of Threats to Judicial Independence:

1. Political interference in judicial appointments or transfers. 
2. Attempts to influence judicial decisions through intimidation or coercion. 
3. Restrictions on the judiciary's ability to exercise judicial review. 
4. Lack of financial resources or resources to carry out their duties. 

Constitutional Protection for Independence of Judiciary

The Indian Constitution ensures judicial independence through provisions like security of tenure for judges, fixed service conditions, removal only by impeachment, and judicial review powers, preventing undue influence from the legislature or executive. 

Separation of Powers:

The Constitution establishes a separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, ensuring each branch operates independently. 

Security of Tenure:

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure, meaning they cannot be removed easily, except through a complex impeachment process. 

This is enshrined in Articles 124 and 217 respectively. 

Fixed Service Conditions:

The salaries, allowances, and other service conditions of judges are fixed and cannot be altered to their disadvantage, preventing financial coercion. 

This is guaranteed under Articles 125 and 221. 

Removal Only by Impeachment:

Judges can be removed only through a parliamentary impeachment process, not by executive whim. 

This is detailed in Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b). 

Power of Judicial Review:

Courts have the power of judicial review, allowing them to examine the constitutionality of laws and actions of the government. 

This is enshrined in Articles 32 and 226. 

No Discussion in Legislature:

The Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges, except during impeachment proceedings. 

This is outlined in Article 121. 

Contempt Powers:

Courts have the power to punish for contempt, ensuring compliance with their authority. 

This is outlined in Articles 129 and 215. 

Case References

1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (The First Judges Case): 

• This case addressed the issue of judicial appointments and transfers, particularly the role of the executive in these processes. 
• The court ruled that the executive's power in these matters should be limited, and that the judiciary should have a significant say in its own composition. 
• It established that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. 

2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) (The Second Judges Case):

• This case further solidified the judiciary's independence by emphasizing the need for a collegial system for judicial appointments. 
• The court held that the independence of the judiciary is necessary for democracy to function effectively. 
• It stressed that the judiciary should be free from external pressures or influences, particularly from the executive and legislature. 

3. The Third Judges Case (1998):

• The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the principles laid down in the Second Judges Case. 
• It further clarified the role of the Chief Justice of India in the appointment and transfer of judges.