Module 3.2 - Judiciary as an Organ of The Government

3.2 JUDICIARY AS AN ORGAN OF THE GOVERNMENT 3.2.1 ROLE AND FUNCTION OF JUDICIARY The judiciary is an important branch of government that plays a crucial role in a country's legal system. Its main function is to interpret and apply the laws to resolve disputes and ensure justice is served. Here are some simple explanations of the role and functions of the judiciary: 1. Settling Disputes: One of the primary functions of the judiciary is to settle disputes between individuals, organizations, or even the government. When people have conflicts or disagreements, they can bring their cases to court, and judges make decisions based on the law and evidence presented. 2. Upholding the Law: The judiciary ensures that laws are followed and applied correctly. Judges interpret the laws passed by the legislative branch and make judgments based on their understanding of the law. They ensure that everyone is treated fairly and that the rights and freedoms of individuals are protected. 3. Applying Punishments: When someone breaks the law, it is the judiciary's responsibility to determine guilt or innocence and impose appropriate punishments. Judges decide whether someone is guilty or not based on the evidence presented in court. If found guilty, they decide on the appropriate penalties or sentences. 4. Protecting Rights and Liberties: The judiciary safeguards the rights and liberties of individuals. Judges review cases to ensure that people's constitutional rights are respected and protected. They play a critical role in upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and privacy. 5. Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which means they can review the constitutionality of laws or government actions. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the judiciary can strike it down, preventing it from being enforced. This helps maintain the balance of power and ensures that laws adhere to the principles of the constitution. 6. Ensuring Fairness and Impartiality: Judges are expected to be fair and impartial in their decisions. They should not favor any particular group or individual but instead base their judgments on the law and the facts presented. This ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law. Overall, the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring justice, upholding the law, and protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals. It acts as an independent branch of government that provides a neutral forum for resolving disputes and maintaining the rule of law in a country. 3.2.2 THREE METHODS OF APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDGE 1. Appointment by the Executive: In this method, the judges are appointed by the executive branch of government, which is usually the president or a similar authority. The executive branch selects and appoints individuals to become judges. This method allows the executive to have direct control over the appointment process, as they have the authority to choose judges who align with their views or priorities. 2. Appointment by Legislative Confirmation: In this method, the judges are appointed by the executive branch, but their appointment is subject to confirmation by the legislative branch. The executive branch nominates individuals for judicial positions, and then the legislative branch, such as a parliament or congress, reviews and approves or rejects the nominations. This method provides a system of checks and balances, as the legislative branch can ensure that only qualified and suitable candidates are appointed. 3. Appointment by Judicial Commission: In this method, an independent judicial commission or a similar body is responsible for appointing judges. The commission is composed of legal experts, judges, and other stakeholders. It typically follows a transparent and merit-based selection process, which may involve interviews, assessments, and recommendations. This method aims to ensure that judges are selected based on their qualifications, experience, and suitability for the role, without direct interference from the executive or legislative branches. It's important to note that the specific methods of judge appointment can vary between different countries or legal systems. Some countries may use a combination of these methods or have their unique approach to judge appointments. The goal of any appointment method is to ensure the selection of competent and impartial judges who can uphold the rule of law and administer justice fairly. 3.2.3 ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE, ELECTION BY THE LEGISLATIVE, NOMINATION BY THE EXECUTIVE 1. Election by the People: In this method, judges are chosen through a direct election by the people. Similar to how citizens vote for their political representatives, they also have the opportunity to vote for judges. Candidates interested in becoming judges campaign for the position, and the general public casts their votes to elect the judges they prefer. This method emphasizes public participation and allows citizens to have a direct say in who becomes a judge. 2. Election by the Legislative: In this method, judges are selected through an election conducted by the legislative branch of government, such as a parliament or congress. Members of the legislative body vote to elect judges from a pool of candidates. This method ensures that judges are chosen by elected representatives who have a good understanding of the legal system and can make informed decisions regarding judicial appointments. 3. Nomination by the Executive: In this method, the executive branch of government, usually headed by the president or a similar authority, nominates individuals to become judges. The executive branch carefully considers the qualifications, experience, and suitability of potential candidates and puts forward their nominations. The nominated candidates may then go through a confirmation process, such as approval by the legislative branch or a judicial commission, before assuming the position as a judge. It's important to note that the specific methods of judge appointment can vary between different countries or legal systems. Some countries may use a combination of these methods or have their unique approach to judge appointments. The goal of any appointment method is to ensure the selection of competent and impartial judges who can uphold the rule of law and administer justice fairly. 3.2.4 IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY – MEASURE TO ENSURE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY Importance of Independence of Judiciary: 1. Checks and Balances: Judicial independence ensures a system of checks and balances within the government. It prevents the concentration of power in any one branch, such as the executive or legislative, and provides a neutral arbiter to ensure the actions of other branches are in line with the law and the constitution. 2. Rule of Law: An independent judiciary upholds the rule of law. Judges make decisions based on the law and legal principles, free from external pressures or influences. This guarantees that everyone, regardless of their status or power, is subject to the same laws and treated fairly. 3. Protection of Rights: Judicial independence safeguards individual rights and liberties. Judges can protect the rights of citizens by interpreting laws and the constitution in a fair and unbiased manner. They act as a check on any potential violation of rights by the government or other individuals. 4. Public Confidence: An independent judiciary enhances public confidence in the legal system. When people believe that judges are impartial and free from undue influence, they are more likely to trust and respect the decisions of the courts. This trust is essential for a functioning and respected justice system. Measures to Ensure Independence of Judiciary: 1. Appointment and Tenure: Ensuring a fair and transparent process for the appointment of judges, based on merit and qualifications, helps safeguard their independence. Establishing fixed terms or life tenure for judges can provide them with security and protection from political pressures or interference. 2. Judicial Ethics and Conduct: Implementing a code of ethics for judges and promoting professional conduct helps maintain their independence. Judges should be held to high standards of integrity, impartiality, and fairness in their decision-making process. 3. Separation of Powers: Maintaining a clear separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches is crucial. This prevents any one branch from unduly influencing the judiciary and allows judges to make decisions based on the law, free from political interference. 4. Judicial Review: Granting the judiciary the power of judicial review allows them to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power ensures that the judiciary can hold the other branches accountable and protect individual rights and freedoms. 5. Adequate Resources and Security: Providing adequate resources, including funding, facilities, and support staff, is essential for the functioning of an independent judiciary. Additionally, ensuring the physical and personal security of judges protects them from external threats or intimidation. 3.2.5 RULE OF LAW AND JUDICIAL REVIEW, JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA AND USA – A COMPARATIVE STUDY Aspects Definition Judicial Review in India Judicial Review in the United States The power of the judiciary to review The power of the judiciary to review the and strike down laws or government constitutionality of laws or government Aspects Judicial Review in India Judicial Review in the United States actions that are inconsistent with the actions and invalidate those that violate the Constitution. Constitution. Part of the basic structure doctrine under the Indian Constitution, which protects fundamental rights and ensures the supremacy of the Constitution. Derived from the principle of judicial review established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), which granted the Supreme Court the authority to review the constitutionality of laws. Broad scope of judicial review, allowing the judiciary to review both Scope and constitutional and non-constitutional Jurisdiction matters. Extensive scope of judicial review, encompassing both federal and state laws, as well as actions by the executive and legislative branches. Basis The power of judicial review is implied from Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Indian the "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution provide the legal Constitution, particularly in Article III and the framework for judicial review in India. Fourteenth Amendment. Specific Provisions Role Judiciary The judiciary in India plays a significant role in upholding fundamental rights, ensuring legislative compliance with the of Constitution, and protecting citizens' rights. Hierarchy of Courts The Supreme Court of India has the highest authority for judicial review, The judiciary in the United States safeguards the Constitution, interprets its provisions, and acts as the final arbiter in cases involving constitutional questions. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest authority for judicial review, followed by federal appellate courts and district courts. Aspects Judicial Review in India Judicial Review in the United States followed by the High Courts in each state. Political Implications Judicial review in India often involves complex political issues, including challenges to laws passed by the legislature and government actions. Judicial review in the United States has significant political implications as decisions by the Supreme Court can shape public policy and impact the functioning of the government. 3.2.6 BASIC STRUCTURE CASE (SPECIFIED) PARLIAMENTARYPOWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTIONAND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FOUR LANDMARK CASES – AK GOPLAN, SHANKARI PRASAD, SAJJAN SINGH, GOLAKATH AND KESHAVANANDA BHARATI – MAIN FEATURE 1. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):  Main Issue: This case focused on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.  Main Feature: The court ruled that "procedure established by law" in Article 21 meant that as long as a law was passed by the legislature, it would be considered valid, regardless of its reasonableness. Significance: The case established the interpretation that any law passed by the legislature would be considered valid under Article 21, regardless of its reasonableness. This decision highlighted the broad power of the legislature to enact laws without significant judicial interference.  2. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):  Main Issue: This case revolved around the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights.  Main Feature: The court held that the amending power of the Parliament included the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. It stated that the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution was unlimited.  Significance: This case established the initial view that the Parliament had unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. It emphasized the authority of the Parliament to make changes to the Constitution without strict judicial limitations  3. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):  Main Issue: This case examined the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act, which sought to acquire the lands of the former rulers of Indian princely states.   Main Feature: The court upheld the validity of the amendment, reiterating its earlier stance that the Parliament had unrestricted power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. Significance: This case reaffirmed the previous decisions and further solidified the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution without limitations. It upheld the Parliament's unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, providing stability to the amending process. 4. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967):  Main Issue: In this case, the question was whether the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extended to abridging or taking away fundamental rights.  Main Feature: The court overturned its previous decisions and held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights. It stated that the amending power of the Parliament did not extend to changing the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.  Significance: This case introduced the concept of the "basic structure doctrine." It held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights. The decision marked a significant shift by limiting the amending power of Parliament and protecting the core principles and essential features of the Constitution. 5.    Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Main Issue: This case dealt with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its impact on fundamental rights. Main Feature: The court introduced the concept of the "basic structure doctrine." It held that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure or essential features. The basic structure refers to the core principles and values of the Constitution that ensure democracy, equality, and the protection of fundamental rights. Significance: The case established a limitation on the amending power of Parliament, safeguarding the core principles of the Constitution. It set a precedent that certain fundamental rights and constitutional principles are beyond the reach of amendment.