Ch 6 Judiciary

Chapter 6, “Judiciary,” examines the role, powers, and independence of the judicial system in India. The chapter opens by emphasizing that courts are not merely arbitrators in private disputes but perform crucial political functions, with the Supreme Court of India being one of the most powerful courts in the world.

The principal role of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law:the principle that all individuals, rich or poor, regardless of caste or gender, are subjected to the same law:and to ensure that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship. To perform this role effectively, the judiciary must be independent of political pressures.

The Indian Constitution ensures judicial independence through several measures: the legislature is not involved in judicial appointments (judges are appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India, with the collegium system now giving primacy to the opinion of senior judges); judges have security of tenure, holding office until retirement age (65 for Supreme Court, 62 for High Courts); a very difficult removal procedure (requires special majority in both Houses of Parliament, with only one unsuccessful attempt so far:Justice V. Ramaswami in 1992); salaries and allowances not subject to legislative approval; and immunity from personal criticism (contempt of court powers).

The chapter details the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Original jurisdiction covers federal disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves, which no other court can hear; Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for enforcement of fundamental rights through writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari; Appellate jurisdiction makes the Supreme Court the highest court of appeal against High Court decisions in both civil and criminal cases; Advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation (though neither the Court is bound to give advice nor the President bound to accept it). The Supreme Court also has review powers under Article 137 to review its own judgments, and its decisions are binding on all courts in India.

The chapter then explores judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) . Traditional litigation required that only a person whose rights were violated could approach the court. However, around 1979, this changed with cases like Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar (under-trial prisoners who spent years in jail longer than their potential sentence) and Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (prisoner torture case), where the Court allowed public-spirited citizens, social organizations, and lawyers to file petitions on behalf of the needy and deprived. PIL has democratized the judicial system, forced executive accountability, expanded the idea of rights (clean air, unpolluted water, decent living), and made elections more free and fair (requiring candidates to file affidavits about assets and qualifications).

However, critics argue that judicial activism has overburdened courts, blurred the line between judiciary and executive/legislature, and potentially created strains on the democratic principle of separation of powers. The chapter concludes by examining the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament, particularly the conflict over the right to property and the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be violated even by Parliament through amendment, while reserving to the judiciary the right to decide what constitutes the basic structure. This case changed the nature of legislative-judicial conflicts. The right to property was removed from Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment (1978) and made a legal right under Article 300A.

Other unresolved issues remain, such as parliamentary privileges versus judicial review, and the extent to which courts can regulate legislative functioning. Despite tensions, the prestige of the judiciary has increased considerably, and it remains a powerful, independent institution that protects rights, interprets the Constitution, and maintains the delicate balance of power essential for democracy.