Authored By: Shivanshi Verma
Amity University , Lucknow
Introduction
[1]“Constitution is not a mere lawyers document, it is a vehicle of Life, and its spirit is always the spirit of Age.” Quote by Dr. B R Ambedkar.
Independence judiciary : The idea that the court ought to be separate from the other arms of government is known as judicial independence. In other words, judges shouldn’t be improperly influenced by personal or commercial interests, or by the other parts of government. The concept of separation of powers depends on the independence of the judiciary.
Executive overreach refers to the President’s and executive branch’s extension of power beyond the Constitution and checks and balances system, infringing on the authority of the legislative or judicial branches, exceeding their legally mandated responsibilities.
why the issue of “Judicial Independence vs. Executive Overreach” is vital to Indian democracy: In India, judiciary work as an independent and free from other branch of government without any pressure . Judges may not be able to render fair rulings if they are affected by the executive branch, such as politicians or public servants. People’s rights may be violated, and the Constitution may be weakened. [2]Since too much government meddling might upset the balance of power, judicial independence is essential to restraining government power. To preserve democracy and the post-independence ideals of equality, justice, and freedom, the court must continue to be strong and independent.
“The constitutional balance, a pillar of Indian democracy, is in danger due to recent events that point to an increasing trend of executive meddling in the Indian judiciary.”
Historical Context
Following India’s independence in 1947, the judiciary was entrusted with protecting the Constitution, guaranteeing justice for all citizens, and making sure the administration followed the law. By exercising the judicial review authority granted by Articles 13, 32, and 226 the courts have upheld fundamental rights and held the government responsible for actions that violate the constitution and judiciary also check on both legislature and executive.
In the early judgments like [3]“Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)” [4]establish the basic structure doctrine that parliament has power to amend the constitution but it cant utter the fundamental and basic structure. Even with a majority, Parliament cannot change fundamental constitutional values like democracy, secularism, and judicial independence. This ruling was a significant step in strengthening judicial independence and a clear defense against executive overreach.
The Emergency (1975–77): A Turning Point for Judicial-Executive Relations: the emergency is the turning point between legislature and executive. During this period, the executive suspended the civil liberties were curtailed, fundamental rights are violated, censorship was imposed on newspapers across India , thousands of opposition leaders are arrested without trial. The judiciary was put to the test in the Habeas Corpus case, ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), when the Supreme Court decided that people, including those who had been wrongfully imprisoned during the Emergency, had no way to petition the courts. Because of his acts, Justice H.R. Khanna, who upheld a fundamental right to life and liberty, was removed from his position as Chief Justice. This episode, which is regarded as one of the most concerning in Indian judicial history, brought to light the perils of governmental power and the way in which political pressure can erode judicial independence.
Contemporary Legal Issues
Judicial appointments & the Collegium vs. NJAC debate : The Indian judiciary’s appointment process has been a subject of ongoing debate There is a contentious dispute between the Collegium system and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). In order to safeguard judicial independence from presidential meddling, the Collegium system, which was instituted by Supreme Court decisions, gives preference to senior judges in the selection and actions of the higher judiciary.[5] The 2014 NJAC Act drew criticism for the absence of clear standards, transparency, and accountability in the Collegium of the Indian court. A commission of members from the executive, judicial, and civil society branches was intended to be established by the Act in order to represent the Collegium. But in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that it violated judicial independence and the Constitution’s Basic Structure, making it illegal. The necessity to strengthen judicial selection transparency while avoiding political influence was brought to light by this decision, which reignited the debate between autonomy and transparency.
Delay in judicial appointments and transfers (e.g., Justice Muralidhar case). Judicial independence has suffered as a result of executive overreach, which has caused delays or manipulations in judicial nominations and transfers. Judge S. Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court after he criticized the Delhi Police’s inaction during the riots in North-East Delhi. The legal community attacked the administration’s late-night notice, which was perceived as a punitive measure, as an attack on the independence of the judiciary and a warning to judges against powerful government posts.Collegium recommendations for nominations or elevations to High Courts and the Supreme Court are frequently delayed, which has a detrimental impact on the administration of justice. If nominations and transfers are not made in a timely, transparent, and politically impartial manner, the judiciary’s independence and credibility will keep deteriorating.
Legal and Constitutional Safeguards : [6]Article 50: Separation of powes. The state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public seervices of the state. But, this falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is not enforceable.
The doctrine of separation of powers: It is the basic stricture doctrine says that separation of executive from judiciary
International Perspective: How Other Democracies Protect Judicial Independence – Lessons for India
Federal judges in the US and the UK are granted life tenure and are shielded from political pressure, making them democratic nations with independent judiciaries. There are robust institutional safeguards against presidential overreach because judges cannot be removed until they are impeached and the appointment process is closely examined by both public and parliamentary organizations.
[7]By creating a separation between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the UK Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 made it possible for the Judicial Nominations Commission and the UK Supreme Court to nominate judges in an open, merit-based, and politically unaffected manner.
It will be beneficial for India’s robust constitution to take inspiration from the US and UK. India’s opaque collegium system necessitates a more impartial strategy. Stricter cooling-off periods for judges accepting post-retirement posts could be implemented by an independent panel to address concerns about bias. Openness and public trust can be fostered by strong public accountability, as demonstrated in the US. India may follow these examples without mindlessly implementing additional systems, but strengthening the institutional structure to raise openness and shield judges from pressure will fortify its democratic foundation.
Conclusion
In India’s democracy, the judiciary is essential to both individual liberty and the Constitution, and presidential meddling jeopardizes its independence. The necessity of judicial independence was underlined during India’s Emergency period, and despite growing administrative aggression, the state, civil society, and public must preserve it.
Political transfers, appointment delays, and a reluctance to pronounce decisions in delicate cases are some of the ways that the growing executive power threatens the Indian judiciary. This fundamental contradiction might erode public trust and grant the government unbridled authority. As evidenced during the Emergency (1975–77), the judiciary’s cautious attitude to constitutional violations may promote unbridled executive activity. Judicial independence is essential to the survival of Indian democracy and ought to be incorporated into the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Mechanisms like the collegium system, open appointment procedures, and fixed tenures should be strengthened, and judges should be able to speak the truth without worrying about retaliation. The Indian people, civil society, legal professionals, and the media should all be constantly challenging, defending, and supporting the judiciary. The success of the Constitution depends on the moral fibre of those who uphold it.
[1] This Quote Means: ‘Constitution is not a mere lawyers’ document… its spirit is always the spirit of Age’ | Explained News – The Indian Express.
[2] https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1009%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship
[3] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
[4] https://theamikusqriae.com/the-doctrine-of-basic-structure-analyzing-the-constitutional-legacy-of-kesavananda-bharti-v-state-of-kerela1973
[5] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2023/06/05/the-contest-over-the-collegium-system-in-india
[6] The constitution of india “Bare act , universal ‘LexisNexis’”
[7] https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-judiciary
