Write a short note on independence of judiciary
Answers
Answered by
4
Independence of Judiciary
‘’There can be no difference of opinion in the house that our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself. And the question is how these two objects could be secured. There are two different ways in which this matter is governed in other countries. In Great Britain they appointments are made by the crown, without any kind of limitation whatsoever, which means by the executive of the day. there that opposite system I United States where, for instance, offices of the Supreme Court as well as other offices of the State shall be made only with the concurrence of the senate in the United States. It seems to me, in the circumstances I which we live today, where the sense of responsibility has not grown to the same extent to which we find it in the united States, it would be dangerous to leave the appointments to be made by the President, without any kind of reservation or limitation, that is to say, merely on the advice of the executive of the day. Similarly it seems to me that to make object to the concurrence of the Legislature is also not a very suitable provision. Apart from its cumbrous, it also involves the possibility of the appointment being influenced by political pressure and political consideration. The draft Article, therefore, steers a middle course. It does not make the President the Supreme and the absolute authority in the matter of making appointments. It does not also impart the influence of the legislature. The provision in the Article is that there should be calculation of persons who are exhypothesis, well qualified to give proper advice in matters of this sort, and my Judgment is that this sort of provision may be regarded as sufficient for the moment.”
DR.B.R.Ambedkar
The people of a nation may lose confidence in the Executive (The King), or the Legislature but it will be an evil day if they lose their confidence in its judiciary. The judiciary is the guardian of human rights and civil liberties. The judiciary contributes vitally in the preservation of peace and order by settling disputes between the State and Citizens and among citizens which leads to a harmonious and integrated social existence. The quantum of its contribution, however, largely depends upon the willingness of the people to present their problems before it and to honour its decisions. Equity, Justice and good Conscience is an accepted principle of judicial functioning in almost every legal system.[1] The judicial institutions i.e., the Courts are not only Courts of law, they are also the Courts of justice.
The “Rule of law”, said, A.V. Dicey, in 1885 means, “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence or arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government.[2] Another significance, which Dicey attributed to the concept of Rule of law, was; “equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law Courts”.[3] The principle implicit in the Rule of Law that the Executive must act under the law and not by its own decree or fiat, is still cardinal principle of the English system.
For a democratic government, Rule of Law is a basic requirement, and for the maintenance of Rule of Law, there must be an independent and impartial judiciary. In a State professing Rule of Law, the aim should be to provide for a system which secures to its citizens adequate procedure for the redress of their grievances against the State before forums which are able to administer justice in an impartial manner without any fear and favour.
The judiciary is the final interpreter and the guardian of the Constitution.
‘’There can be no difference of opinion in the house that our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself. And the question is how these two objects could be secured. There are two different ways in which this matter is governed in other countries. In Great Britain they appointments are made by the crown, without any kind of limitation whatsoever, which means by the executive of the day. there that opposite system I United States where, for instance, offices of the Supreme Court as well as other offices of the State shall be made only with the concurrence of the senate in the United States. It seems to me, in the circumstances I which we live today, where the sense of responsibility has not grown to the same extent to which we find it in the united States, it would be dangerous to leave the appointments to be made by the President, without any kind of reservation or limitation, that is to say, merely on the advice of the executive of the day. Similarly it seems to me that to make object to the concurrence of the Legislature is also not a very suitable provision. Apart from its cumbrous, it also involves the possibility of the appointment being influenced by political pressure and political consideration. The draft Article, therefore, steers a middle course. It does not make the President the Supreme and the absolute authority in the matter of making appointments. It does not also impart the influence of the legislature. The provision in the Article is that there should be calculation of persons who are exhypothesis, well qualified to give proper advice in matters of this sort, and my Judgment is that this sort of provision may be regarded as sufficient for the moment.”
DR.B.R.Ambedkar
The people of a nation may lose confidence in the Executive (The King), or the Legislature but it will be an evil day if they lose their confidence in its judiciary. The judiciary is the guardian of human rights and civil liberties. The judiciary contributes vitally in the preservation of peace and order by settling disputes between the State and Citizens and among citizens which leads to a harmonious and integrated social existence. The quantum of its contribution, however, largely depends upon the willingness of the people to present their problems before it and to honour its decisions. Equity, Justice and good Conscience is an accepted principle of judicial functioning in almost every legal system.[1] The judicial institutions i.e., the Courts are not only Courts of law, they are also the Courts of justice.
The “Rule of law”, said, A.V. Dicey, in 1885 means, “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence or arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government.[2] Another significance, which Dicey attributed to the concept of Rule of law, was; “equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law Courts”.[3] The principle implicit in the Rule of Law that the Executive must act under the law and not by its own decree or fiat, is still cardinal principle of the English system.
For a democratic government, Rule of Law is a basic requirement, and for the maintenance of Rule of Law, there must be an independent and impartial judiciary. In a State professing Rule of Law, the aim should be to provide for a system which secures to its citizens adequate procedure for the redress of their grievances against the State before forums which are able to administer justice in an impartial manner without any fear and favour.
The judiciary is the final interpreter and the guardian of the Constitution.
Similar questions