the judiciary in india ,independan do you agree state the argument in support and against the statement
Answers
Independence of Judiciary in India :-
The constitution of India adopts diverse devices to ensure the independence of the judiciary in keeping with both the doctrines of constitutional and Parliamentary sovereignty. Elaborated provision are in place for ensuring the independent position of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Firstly , the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have to take an oath before entering office that they will faithfully perform their duties without fear, favour, affection, ill-will, and defend the constitution of India and the laws. Recognition of the doctrine of constitutional sovereignty is implicit in this oath.
Secondly , the process of appointment of judges also ensures the independence of judiciary in India. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the President. The constitution of India has made it obligatory on the President to make the appointments in consultation with the highest judicial authorities. He of course takes advice of the Cabinet. The constitution also prescribes necessary qualifications for such appointments. The constitution tries to make the appointments unbiased by political considerations.
Thirdly , the Constitution provides for the security of tenure of Judges. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court’s serve “during good behavior” and not during the pleasure of the President, as is the case with other high Government officials. They cannot be arbitrarily removed by the President. They may be removed from office only through impeachment. A Judge can be removed on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity on a report by both Houses of Parliament supported by a special majority.
Fourthly , their salaries and allowances are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India. Further, the salaries and allowances of Judges of Supreme court and High courts cannot be reduced during their tenure, except during a financial emergency under Article 360 of the constitution.
Fifthly , the activities of the Judges cannot be discussed by the executive or the legislature, except in case of removal of them.
Sixth , the retirement age is 65 years for Supreme court judges and 62 years for High court judges. Such long tenure enable the judges to function impartially and independently.
Seventh , a retired Supreme court judge cannot practice engage in legal practice in any court in India. However, a retired High court judge can practice law in a state other than the state in which he served as a High Court judge. These restrictions ensure that a retired judge is not able to influence the decision of the courts.
Independence of judiciary implies that the judiciary will be free from the influence of the legislative and executive.
The arguments for the independence of judiciary in India are as follows:-
1) The Indian Constitution provides for the security of the tenure of the judges. They do note serve on the pleasure of the President but during 'good behaviour'.
2) The salary and allowances of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts come from the Consolidated Fund of India and cannot be reduced during the time they serve except in case of financial emergency.
3) The executive or the judiciary cannot discuss the activities of the judiciary.
4) The judges retire at the age of 65 years ensuring that they work impartially and independently throughout their tenure.
5) The judges of Supreme Court cannot practice law in any court of India after retirement ensuring they do not influence the legal practice.
The arguments against the independence of judiciary in India rae as follows:-
1) The Chief Justice of India as well as other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President.
2) The executive and judiciary can impeach judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
3) Sometimes, the legislative decisions are influenced by the legislative and executive.
4) Even if the Supreme Court passes a landmark judgment, it might not be backed by the legislature by making a law.