.png)
By Mimansa Mittal & Suraj Mittal
I. Introduction
The judiciary is an essential pillar of a democratic system, with the vital responsibility of interpreting and implementing the law, guaranteeing justice, and safeguarding the Constitution. The judiciary plays a crucial role in a democratic society, as it operates independently of the legislative and executive branches of government to form a democratic sphere. However, can this symbol of neutrality truly remain unaffected by the political currents? As we navigate the intricate landscape of our nation’s governance, the issue of judicial autonomy emerges prominently. Is our judiciary an impregnable stronghold, immune to political influence, or does it subtly yield to the pressures of power dynamics? The complex interplay between the judiciary and the political realm has long been a heated discussion and examination topic. Ultimately, the judiciary's autonomy is not merely a theoretical concept but a vital requirement for the well-being of a democracy. It ensures that laws are administered impartially and consistently, devoid of the influence of those in positions of authority. As we delve deeper into this intricate and often contentious issue, we uncover the true scope of the judiciary’s independence and its ramifications for justice and governance in our nation.
II. Bridging History to Modernity
A. Judiciary’s Political Interactions
Following World War II, a significant transfer of power from legislatures to courts and other legal institutions, known as “judicialization”, has occurred globally. This shift has had a widespread impact as courts increasingly become key players in policy-making. Judges are now more inclined to oversee political behaviour in various spheres, such as legislatures, agencies, and among the public, by establishing and upholding standards for interest groups, political parties, and elected or appointed officials. Judicialization goes beyond the direct involvement of courts in policy-making, as their frequent interventions mean that other political actors and groups must take into account potential judicial responses. The practices of judicial rule-making often straddle the line between legal and political realms. When courts establish general rules that affect everyone, especially in constitutional matters, reactions from the public and political spheres are bound to occur.
The political aspect of court appointments, while not always partisan, raises concerns when courts become politicized in a partisan fashion. Democracies experience changing majorities, and if these shifts lead to corresponding alterations in judicial appointments, the stability of the legal system itself could be jeopardized. This dynamic emphasizes the crucial need to comprehend the evolving interactions between the judiciary and the political domain, from their historical origins to contemporary developments.
In ancient times, the head of a family would administer justice by resolving disputes within the family unit. However, this system was susceptible to bias, as the family head might show favouritism towards certain members based on personal preferences or proximity. As societies progressed and social relationships became more intricate, the necessity for an impartial arbiter of conflicts became apparent. The independence of judges should not be seen as a personal privilege but as a fundamental social structure. This ensures that there is a fair and unbiased resolution of disputes.
By combining these viewpoints, we understand the evolution of judicial independence from ancient times to the present day, emphasizing its significance in upholding fairness and impartiality in the political sphere. This ensures that there is no possibility of bias arising from proximity, relationships, personal connections, or other influencing factors. As a result, the principle of natural justice, which dictates that no one should be a judge in their case and should have no direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the proceedings, emerged from the need to deliver unbiased and just decisions.
While judicial independence is a critical principle, it can be threatened by political influences, particularly when judicial appointments become partisan. This dynamic suggests that the judiciary is at risk of becoming politically dependent, which can undermine its role as an impartial adjudicator.
B. Judicial intervention
The relationship between the judiciary and the political realm has always been complex, with significant changes influencing their interactions. A prime example is the transformation of judicial appointments in India, particularly showcased by the First and Second Judges' cases. Discontent with the First Judges’ case led to the groundbreaking Second Judges’ case, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India. This case originated from petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, urging the filling of vacancies in the Supreme Court and various High Courts. A Nine-Judge bench overturned the First Judges’ case, stressing that judicial appointments should entail a participatory consultative process, ensuring no single constitutional functionary holds superiority; decisions should be made collectively. The court established a judicial collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the two most senior judges as the primary body for appointments. In conflicting opinions, the CJI and the two most senior judges would represent the judiciary's position, thereby limiting the CJI’s authority to unilaterally nominate candidates. Furthermore, the tradition of appointing the most senior puisne judge as the CJI was maintained, with consultation under Article 124(2) required only if the most senior judge was considered unsuitable. This ruling aimed to equalize power between the judiciary and the executive, promoting a cooperative relationship. Nevertheless, it received backlash, with some contending that it contradicted constitutional provisions. The Second Judges’ case illustrates the evolving interaction between the judiciary and politics, showcasing the ongoing effort to uphold judicial independence in the face of executive influence. It underscores the judiciary's responsibility to uphold impartiality and fairness amid political pressures, reflecting broader themes of judicialization and the judiciary's pivotal role in the political sphere.
The case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, also known as the First Judges' case, is a notable example of the judiciary's engagement with the political realm. In this case, the Supreme Court was confronted with multiple petitions challenging the appointment procedures for High Court judges, particularly focusing on the legitimacy of advance consent for transfers and the appointment of additional judges. While the Court affirmed the judiciary's autonomy and stressed that transfers should be in the public interest rather than punitive measures, it did give the executive branch the primary role in judicial appointments, a decision that drew criticism from the legal community. This case underscored the conflict between judicial independence and executive authority. The 121st Report of the Law Commission acknowledged the necessity for increased judicial participation in appointments and suggested the establishment of a National Judicial Service Commission consisting of eleven members, with the Chief Justice of India as the chairperson. This shift towards a more collaborative and equitable appointment process highlights the ongoing development of judicial-political dynamics, demonstrating the overarching goal of upholding judicial independence in the face of political pressures.
III. Interplay between Judiciary and Politics
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud recently emphasized the critical relationship between the judiciary and politics, highlighting that judicial independence relies on individual judges' freedom to operate without political pressure, social obligations, or inherent prejudices. Reflecting on the judiciary's development since India's first Chief Justice Harilal J. Kania, Chief Justice Chandrachud recalled Chief Justice Kania's principles from the Supreme Court's inaugural session in 1950. These principles included the judiciary's independence, interpreting the Constitution as a dynamic entity, and upholding citizens' respect for the Supreme Court as a legitimate institution.
Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that the Supreme Court's legitimacy stems not only from the Constitution but also from citizens' trust that the court serves as a neutral and impartial mediator of conflicts. He emphasized that judicial independence entails more than just insulation from the executive and legislative branches; it also necessitates that individual judges remain free from social and political influences and inherent biases. This highlights the intricate balance needed to preserve judicial impartiality amidst the changing dynamics between the judiciary and the political sphere, underscoring the ongoing challenge of maintaining the judiciary's role as an unbiased and just institution in a democratic society.
The relationship between the judiciary and politics is often brought to light through the process of judicial appointments. Senator Barack Obama stressed the importance of intelligence and sound judgment in a judicial nominee, as seen in his response to Justice Janice Rogers Brown's nomination. He emphasized that a judge's true test lies in their ability to set aside personal political beliefs and base decisions solely on facts and merits. This principle underscores the significance of upholding judicial independence, a fundamental aspect of democratic governance envisioned by the Founders of the United States.
Appointing close associates to high judicial positions undermines this independence and can result in subpar performance on the bench. Ronald B. Standler's analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's history revealed that numerous justices were average, highlighting the dangers of appointments based on factors other than merit. The immense power a Supreme Court justice holds necessitates more than just past experience; it requires exceptional judgment and impartiality.
It is essential to ensure that judges are selected through transparent and merit-based procedures to maintain public trust in the judiciary. Such processes help prevent conflicts of interest, such as judges presiding over cases where their relatives hold key positions. This approach not only safeguards the integrity of judicial appointments but also upholds the judiciary's role as an unbiased and independent mediator in the political arena. These observations on judicial appointments demonstrate the ongoing challenge of balancing political influence and judicial independence, underscoring the need for stringent selection criteria to attract top talent and uphold the credibility and effectiveness of the judiciary.
The historical and contemporary examples of the judiciary's involvement with the political sphere highlight the crucial significance of judicial independence. This guarantees that judges exhibit not just intellect but also fair judgment and neutrality, devoid of any political or societal influences. Sustaining this equilibrium is vital for upholding the judiciary's integrity and its function as a fundamental element of democratic administration. By upholding these values, the judiciary can persist in operating as an impartial and autonomous mediator, supporting the rule of law and public trust in its rulings.
IV. The Vitality of Judicial Autonomy
Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society, guaranteeing that judges can make decisions without being influenced by external pressures. Historically, this autonomy involves shielding judges from interference by other branches of government. This separation is crucial in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that justice is dispensed equitably and without bias. There are various approaches to achieving this independence: establishing legal statutes or constitutional provisions to prevent public officials from encroaching on judicial authority, fostering traditions or norms of self-restraint among policymakers, or a combination of formal regulations and normative practices enforced by the electorate through voting. Each approach seeks to impose institutional, ethical, or electoral constraints on public officials, safeguarding that the judiciary remains an impartial and unbiased arbiter of justice. Preserving judicial independence not only safeguards individual liberties but also strengthens public confidence in the legal system and the democratic process.
V. Conclusion
The Constitution of India ensures justice for all. The Judiciary members are responsible for the administration of justice. The judges work tirelessly to ensure a free and impartial administration of justice in order to provide its citizens with fairness in the application of the law. The duty of judges is considered very sacred, which is why the Constitution has provided for the independence of the judiciary so that they can remain impartial in serving the constitutional goals, acting fairly, reasonably, and free from any fear or favour. Problems arise when the other organs, such as the legislature and the executive, start to interfere. This external interference not only erodes the sanctity of the profession but also curtails individuals' rights. Recently, it has been observed that retired judges take public office shortly after their retirement. Surprisingly, it was found that they were involved in many important decisions during their tenure that were favourable to the government. These early retirement appointments are a real cause for concern. The court's decision to urgently hear a frivolous political petition and refuse to consider an urgent petition involving the real problems of needy people is incomprehensible.
In summary, the historical and contemporary interactions between the judiciary and the political sphere highlight the crucial significance of upholding judicial independence. The Constitution's safeguards for an autonomous judiciary are intended to guarantee that justice is dispensed fairly and without interference from other branches of government. Nevertheless, the recent practices of appointing retired judges to key positions and giving precedence to political cases jeopardize this independence. It is imperative to address these challenges to safeguard the judiciary's credibility and ensure its role as an impartial dispenser of justice for all individuals. Recognizing the changing dynamics between the judiciary and politics is essential for preserving the rule of law and upholding public trust in the judicial system.
Mimansa Mittal & Suraj Mittal are second and third-year law students at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
Very insightful article!