Judicial autonomy and rule of law are the foundational pillars of our democratic system. An autonomous judiciary ensures that judiciary operates free from executive and legislative interference and external influences. The rule of law ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and holds each and every person accountable for their actions under the law. Judicial autonomy is crucial for upholding the rule of law and rule of law cannot be achieved without an independent and impartial judiciary.
The Constitution of India guarantees judicial independence and rule of law, which is significant for ensuring fair and impartial justice, securing individual rights and to preserve democratic values. This article explores how an autonomous judiciary supports the rule of law and identifies the challenges posed to judicial autonomy in India that potentially affects its authority, integrity and threaten its independence.
Introduction
“All the rights secured to the citizens under the constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous judiciary.”
– By Andrew Jackson
Judicial autonomy is one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic framework. In India, judiciary stands as a pharos of justice which ensures fair and impartial application of the law and protection of individual rights, which are essential for upholding the rule of law. Judicial autonomy means that judiciary can function independently, free from control and influence of executive and legislative organs of government. This freedom empowers the judiciary to keep a vital check on powers of executive and legislative branches, to prevent its abuse and violation of law. It enables the judges to decide cases in fair and impartial manner, fostering public confidence in legal system.
An autonomous judiciary is the key to uphold rule of law. Rule of law implies that no one is above the law and everyone, including government is accountable to and governed by the supreme law. It ensures predictability, fairness and consistency in application of laws. To maintain the supremacy of rule of law, it is essential that all legal procedures and decisions of judiciary must be on the basis of fairness, equity, justice, impartiality and respect for human rights.
Judicial autonomy and rule of law are interconnected concepts. Rule of law cannot be achieved without an independent, unbiased and effective judiciary. Autonomous judicial system is the only way through which rule of law can be enforced.
Concept of Judicial Autonomy and Rule of Law
Judicial Autonomy
The concept of judicial autonomy stems from the doctrine of separation of powers, which divides governmental authority into the legislature, executive and judicial branches. This doctrine ensures that judiciary operates free from the executive and legislative interference and external pressure or influences. It enables the judges to decide cases before them impartially, on the basis of facts and law, without any restrictions, reprisal, undue influence or pressures, thereby upholding rule of law and safeguarding rights of citizens.
Independent judiciary maintains supremacy of the constitution and keeps a check on the functioning of executive and legislature so that they do not overstep their authority and violate law. It ensures that any law or executive action must be within the purview of constitution and if it goes beyond that, then judiciary has power to struck down and declare it unconstitutional.
Judicial Autonomy under Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution ensures judicial autonomy through the following articles:
Separation of Judiciary from Executive – It is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy provided under Article 50 which directs the State to take steps for separation of judiciary from executive in the public services. It ensures complete independence of judiciary from executive control.
Appointment and Removal of Judges – Article 124 and 217 outlines the procedure for appointment and removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges. Appointment of judges is done by the President in consultation with Chief Justice and other senior most judges. The process of removal of judges requires impeachment by Parliament on grounds of misbehavior or incapacity.
Security of Tenure – Once appointed, Supreme Court and High Court shall continue to hold office until they attains the age of sixty-five years and sixty-two years respectively.
Salaries and Allowances of Judges – Articles 125 and 221 provides for salaries and allowances of Supreme Court and High Court judges which are paid by the Consolidated Fund of India and high court judges by Consolidated fund of that state.
Contempt of Court – Under articles 129 and 215, the Supreme Court and High Court have power to punish for its contempt.
No Discussion of Judicial Conduct in Legislature – Article 121 puts a restriction on discussion regarding the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judge in Parliament. Article 211 restricts such discussion in State Legislature also.
Powers and Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Article 32 confers the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. High Courts also enjoys writ jurisdiction under article 226, for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as in other matters.
Rule of Law
The term rule of law has been derived from the French word ‘le Principe de legalite’ which means principle of legality. The rule of law dictates that all individuals and institutions, including the government, are accountable under the law. The concept of rule of law was propounded by Prof. A.V Dicey. Dicey proposed three postulates of Rule of law, which are as follows:
Supremacy of Law – It implies that no one is above the law and everyone are subject to the supreme law of the land.
Equality Before Law – It means that all individuals are equal in the eyes of law and treated equally regardless of their status or position. It ensures equal justice to all.
Predominance of Legal Spirit – For the prevalence of rule of law, an independent and impartial judicial system is crucial for interpreting and enforcing the law fairly.
Rule of Law under Indian Constitution
The rule of law has been a key pillar of Indian democracy. The Indian Constitution embodies the principle of rule of law in various provisions. They are –
Preamble – The Preamble of our Constitution secures to all its citizens justice, equality and liberty.
Article 13 – Article 13 of the Constitution promotes rule of law and states that laws passed by legislature can be struck down if they are contrary to the constitutional provisions.
Article 14 – Article 14 assures equality before law and equal protection of laws to all persons within the territory of India.
Article 21 – The right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be curtailed except by procedure established by law.
Judicial Review – The power of judicial review under Articles 13, 32, 136, 142 and 226 has been provided to the Supreme Court and High court for the preservation of the rule of law.
How Judicial Autonomy Supports Rule of Law
Judicial autonomy is a crucial pillar of democratic governance and rule of law. An independent judiciary is significant for upholding the rule of law and the rule of law frames an environment within which an autonomous judiciary can operate effectively. Without an independent judiciary, the rule of law can be easily undermined.
In a democratic setup, the powers are divided among three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This separation of powers fosters a balance of authority and prevents concentration of power in one single branch. An independent judiciary keeps a vital check on powers exercised by the other two organs, so as to keep them within bounds of law. Judicial autonomy not only maintains checks and balances within government but also safeguards fundamental rights and freedoms. It allows the citizens to challenge governmental actions and policies that infringe upon their rights and can strike down laws or executive actions that violate fundamental rights and are against constitutional provisions.
Being a guardian of rule of law and justice, an independent judiciary ensures that laws are applied consistently and fairly, without bias or discrimination. By shielding judges from external pressures, judicial autonomy promotes impartial decision-making. This independent and impartial character helps the judiciary to faithfully administer justice and perform its functions efficiently. It fosters public trust and confidence in judicial system and promotes social stability and cooperation. Judicial independence upholds the supremacy of the constitution by ensuring that all branches of government adhere to its principles and limitations.
An independent judiciary also contributes in maintaining social order and political stability in the country. Judiciary acts as an arbitrator in union-state disputes and resolves it in an impartial and equitable manner, reducing the potential for political indifferences and social unrest. A reliable and free judiciary is essential for attracting investments and fostering economic development. It assures the investors that their contracts will be enforced and legal rights will be protected against unfair practices. Moreover, a well-functioning judicial system plays a crucial role in combating corruption by holding public officials accountable for their actions, enhancing public trust, and ensuring the delivery of impartial and efficient justice.
In essence, judicial autonomy is the mechanism through which rule of law is enforced, protecting citizens from arbitrary power and ensuring a just and equitable society.
Challenges Faced by Judicial Autonomy in India
Judicial autonomy and impartiality are essential for the fair and equal administration of justice under the rule of law and the protection of human rights. India’s judicial system faces several challenges that potentially impact its efficiency, effectiveness and threaten its independence. They are:
Lack of Transparency in Judicial Appointments
Judicial appointments in India are done through the mechanism of the collegium system. Collegium system means judges appoint judges. Under this, the Chief Justice of India and collegium of four senior-most judges of Supreme Court recommend candidates fit for judicial appointments, thereby reducing the executive or legislative interference in appointment process. The collegium system is vital for maintaining judicial autonomy and safeguards constitutional values and fundamental rights. However, despite these safeguards, the present collegium system lacks transparency and accountability in appointments. The absence of codified selection procedure and opaque functioning raises questions about nepotism and favoritism. The lack of consistent appointment process exacerbates the pendency of cases, undermining public trust in judiciary.
Transfer of Judges
Due to lack of objective and fixed criteria for transfer of judges, there is a risk of arbitrary transfers made with political or corrupt motives. In case of transfer, the consent of the concerned judge is not required, leaving the power of transfer in hands of the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Judges are often transferred if their delivered judgments are against the interests of the executive authorities, which leads to encroachment upon independence of judiciary.
Impeachment of Judges
A judge can be removed from his office only on grounds of proved misbehavior and incapacity by the President of India after motion of impeachment is passed by the Parliament. The participation of legislature in impeachment process poses a risk of political interference in judiciary’s functioning and leads to public distrust.
In-House Mechanism
In-House procedure is a mechanism to address the complaints against judges for their decisions and misconduct. The in-house procedure as a means of ensuring judicial accountability is not backed by a statute or the constitution, which makes it impermeable to judicial review and raises concerns over its effectiveness.
Post-Retirement Employment of Judges
Judges securing post-retirement jobs within public and statutory bodies from the executive raises questions about the independence and impartiality of judiciary. Employment of a retired judge could indirectly influence judgments delivered by him during his tenure. It may create apprehensions of nepotism and favoritism towards government in power and potential for conflict of interests which adversely affects the credibility of their judgments and can erode public faith in judicial autonomy.
Judicial Corruption and Misconduct
Corruption in justice system has direct damaging consequences on the functioning of state and administration of justice. Instances of corruption and professional misconduct decrease public confidence, undermine the credibility of courts and weaken the judge’s ability to act impartially.
Conclusion
Judicial autonomy and rule of law are intertwined concepts. Rule of law cannot be achieved without an independent and impartial judiciary. An independent judiciary maintains the supremacy of the rule of law and ensures that laws are applied consistently and fairly, without any potential for bias. It keeps a vital check on powers exercised by executive and legislature, so that they do not cross constitutional boundaries. It is crucial for ensuring fair and impartial justice, safeguarding fundamental rights and preserving democratic values. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Without an independent judiciary, rule of law can be easily undermined by executive interference, lack of transparency and weak accountability mechanisms, which could potentially impact its authority, integrity and poses a serious threat to its independence. So, an autonomous judicial system is an indispensable requisite for upholding justice and fostering trust and confidence in legal system.
