Write an essay on independence of judiciary in india
Answers
Answered by
1
Independence of the judiciary (also judicial independence) is the principle that the judiciary should be politically insulated from the legislative and the executive power. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government, or from private or partisan interests.
Different nations deal with the idea of judicial independence through different means of judicial selection, or choosing judges. One way to promote judicial independence is by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, which ideally frees them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests. But they may have conflicts with republicanism and they could support it.
In some countries, the ability of the judiciary to check the legislature is enhanced by the power of judicial review. This power can be used, for example, when the judiciary perceives that legislators are jeopardizing constitutional rights such as the rights of the accused. Constitutional economics studies such issues as the proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary, which in many transitional and developing countries is completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the principle of powers' “checks and balances", as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges – being the most dangerous), and the private. The state corruption of the judiciary makes it almost impossible for any business to optimally facilitate the growth and development of national market economy.
Canada has a level of judicial independence entrenched in its Constitution, awarding superior court justices various guarantees to independence under sections 96 to 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These include rights to tenure (although the Constitution has since been amended to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75) and the right to a salary determined by the Parliament of Canada (as opposed to the executive). In 1982 a measure of judicial independence was extended to inferior courts specializing in criminal law (but not civil law) by section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although in the 1986 case Valente v. The Queen it was found these rights are limited. They do, however, involve tenure, financial security and some administrative control.
The year 1997 saw a major shift towards judicial independence, as the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference found an unwritten constitutional norm guaranteeing judicial independence to all judges, including civil law inferior court judges. The unwritten norm is said to be implied by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Consequently, judicial compensation committees such as the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission now recommend judicial salaries in Canada. There are two types of judicial independence: institutional independence and decisional independence. Institutional independence means the judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Decisional independence is the idea that judges should be able to decide cases solely based on the law and facts, without letting the media, politics or other concerns sway their decisions, and without fearing penalty in their careers for their decisions.
Different nations deal with the idea of judicial independence through different means of judicial selection, or choosing judges. One way to promote judicial independence is by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, which ideally frees them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests. But they may have conflicts with republicanism and they could support it.
In some countries, the ability of the judiciary to check the legislature is enhanced by the power of judicial review. This power can be used, for example, when the judiciary perceives that legislators are jeopardizing constitutional rights such as the rights of the accused. Constitutional economics studies such issues as the proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary, which in many transitional and developing countries is completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the principle of powers' “checks and balances", as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges – being the most dangerous), and the private. The state corruption of the judiciary makes it almost impossible for any business to optimally facilitate the growth and development of national market economy.
Canada has a level of judicial independence entrenched in its Constitution, awarding superior court justices various guarantees to independence under sections 96 to 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867. These include rights to tenure (although the Constitution has since been amended to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75) and the right to a salary determined by the Parliament of Canada (as opposed to the executive). In 1982 a measure of judicial independence was extended to inferior courts specializing in criminal law (but not civil law) by section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although in the 1986 case Valente v. The Queen it was found these rights are limited. They do, however, involve tenure, financial security and some administrative control.
The year 1997 saw a major shift towards judicial independence, as the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference found an unwritten constitutional norm guaranteeing judicial independence to all judges, including civil law inferior court judges. The unwritten norm is said to be implied by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Consequently, judicial compensation committees such as the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission now recommend judicial salaries in Canada. There are two types of judicial independence: institutional independence and decisional independence. Institutional independence means the judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Decisional independence is the idea that judges should be able to decide cases solely based on the law and facts, without letting the media, politics or other concerns sway their decisions, and without fearing penalty in their careers for their decisions.
Answered by
0
The importance of maintaining the independence of judiciary is important in the life of a nation. What is the judiciary? It is machinery for the dispensation of ‘justice’ which all persons as sons of God have the right to receive. Justice means an equal and just treatment to every individual. In doing this, the judiciary is expected to judge each case on its merit and should not be moved by any extraneous considerations. It should keep in mind that any invasion or undermining of this right will shake the very foundation of society.
Judiciary acts as the protector and interpreter of the constitution which is the life blood of freedom. In case of mal-administration or oppression by executive or legislature in formulating certain laws unfavourable to the citizens. Judiciary acts as the last resort for the protection of the helpless millions.
Thus any influence by the powerful executive or legislature on judiciary can hardly pass throw our mental horizon – leave alone all other impossible dreams.
We infer therefore that is protecting the citizen from injustice directed by political administrative and other organs, the importance of independence of judiciary can hardly be debated.
History tells us that accumulation of power in hands of a few without impartial law has infact ruined great civilizations and is one proper definition of tyranny.
Independence of judiciary can hardly be dispensed with, even in the interest of perfecting executive strata. How can the officials be honest, independent, impartial and efficient if protective from law is not guaranteed?
We conclude thy stating that not only this section of society, intelligentsia, imbibed within partiality, be given full independence but be extended in its scope of guiding the executive in the act of administration of the economy, too, atleast in such fields as MIS A preventive detention act and many others. Independence of judiciary thus is an absolute necessity and least a choice.
Judiciary acts as the protector and interpreter of the constitution which is the life blood of freedom. In case of mal-administration or oppression by executive or legislature in formulating certain laws unfavourable to the citizens. Judiciary acts as the last resort for the protection of the helpless millions.
Thus any influence by the powerful executive or legislature on judiciary can hardly pass throw our mental horizon – leave alone all other impossible dreams.
We infer therefore that is protecting the citizen from injustice directed by political administrative and other organs, the importance of independence of judiciary can hardly be debated.
History tells us that accumulation of power in hands of a few without impartial law has infact ruined great civilizations and is one proper definition of tyranny.
Independence of judiciary can hardly be dispensed with, even in the interest of perfecting executive strata. How can the officials be honest, independent, impartial and efficient if protective from law is not guaranteed?
We conclude thy stating that not only this section of society, intelligentsia, imbibed within partiality, be given full independence but be extended in its scope of guiding the executive in the act of administration of the economy, too, atleast in such fields as MIS A preventive detention act and many others. Independence of judiciary thus is an absolute necessity and least a choice.
Similar questions