UNIT – II Judiciary under the Constitution

The judiciary in India, as laid out in the Constitution, is a pillar of democracy. It plays a vital role in interpreting laws, safeguarding individual rights, and ensuring a balance of power among government entities. This post explores the intricacies of the Indian judiciary, focusing on the Supreme Court and High Courts. We will look closely at their appointment processes, powers, and the independence that is crucial for their effective functioning.

UNIT – II: Judiciary under the Constitution

• Judiciary under the Constitution Supreme Court of India
• Appointment of Judges 
• Powers and Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court: 
• Original, Appellate and Advisory Jurisdiction – Articles 131, 32, 136, 143
• High Courts• 
• Appointment and Transfer of Judges• 
• Powers and Jurisdiction of the High Courts – Articles 226 & 227 Independence of Judiciary & Judicial Accountability

The Supreme Court of India

Appointment of Judges

The process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court is defined by constitutional provisions. According to Article 124 of the Constitution, the President of India, in consultation with the Chief Justice and other senior judges, appoints the Chief Justice and other judges.

Over the years, the appointment process has evolved significantly. Landmark judgments have established that it is not just a formality; it involves comprehensive discussions to ensure only qualified individuals take on these critical roles. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the collegium system, where senior judges recommend appointments, should be transparent, highlighting the need for reform.

Critics have raised concerns regarding the collegium system's lack of transparency and accountability. Addressing these concerns is essential as studies suggest that judicial appointments influence the court's future decisions. In recent years, efforts to improve this system include calls for a Judicial Appointments Commission, aiming for greater transparency.

Powers and Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court: Original, Appellate, and Advisory Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court operates under distinct jurisdictions defined by various articles of the Constitution.

Original Jurisdiction

Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between the government of India and one or more states, or between multiple states. For example, in a 2020 case, the Supreme Court decided a significant dispute between the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka over water resources, which underscores the importance of such jurisdiction in national integrity.

Writ Jurisdiction

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights. This provision is often called the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. A striking example is the landmark verdict in 2017, where the Supreme Court struck down the practice of instant triple talaq, emphasizing the protection of women's rights in a patriarchal society.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals against judgments from lower courts. This role is crucial as it provides an essential mechanism for reviewing potential judicial errors. The data shows that between 2012 and 2019, the Supreme Court admitted nearly 36% of the appeals it received, reflecting its vital role in ensuring justice.

Advisory Jurisdiction

Under Article 143, the Supreme Court can advise the President of India on legal issues. This jurisdiction emphasizes the Court's role in providing thoughtful legal counsel to the executive branch, promoting well-informed governance, and supporting democracy.

I. The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court (SC) is the apex court of the Indian integrated judicial system.

Feature	Details & Articles
Appointment	Article 124: Appointed by the President. The "Collegium System" (CJI + 4 senior SC judges) recommends names. Qualifications include being a citizen and either a HC Judge (5 yrs), HC Advocate (10 yrs), or a distinguished jurist.
Original Jurisdiction	Article 131: Exclusive power to hear disputes between: 1. Center vs. State(s) 2. Center & State(s) vs. State(s) 3. State vs. State.
Writ Jurisdiction	Article 32: Known as the "Guarantor of Fundamental Rights." The SC can issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.) for the enforcement of rights.
Appellate Jurisdiction	Articles 132–134: Hears appeals from High Courts in Constitutional, Civil, and Criminal matters.
Special Leave Petition	Article 136: Discretionary power to grant leave to appeal against any judgment/order from any court/tribunal in India (except military).
Advisory Jurisdiction	Article 143: The President may seek the SC's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.

High Courts

Appointment and Transfer of Judges

High Courts serve as the highest court at the state level in India, with judges appointed similarly to those in the Supreme Court. Article 217 states that the Governor appoints High Court judges after consulting with the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court.

Additionally, judges can be transferred between High Courts, a practice intended to balance the judiciary across states. Statistics show that in 2018 alone, over 50 judges were transferred to ensure impartiality and reduce regional bias.

Powers and Jurisdiction of the High Courts

High Courts have significant powers that help facilitate justice at the state level.

Writ Jurisdiction

Article 226 permits High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and various legal purposes. This jurisdiction is essential because it allows citizens to seek justice close to home, making the legal system more accessible. For instance, in 2021, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of migrant workers seeking fair wages, addressing immediate grievances effectively.

Supervisory Jurisdiction

Article 227 grants supervisory jurisdiction to High Courts over lower courts and tribunals within their territory. This authority ensures that judicial standards are upheld and prevents lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.

Independence of Judiciary & Judicial Accountability

Judicial independence is a fundamental principle in the Constitution, vital for protecting rights and enforcing laws free from undue political influence. The judiciary's independence is crucial for a functioning democracy.

Yet, the notion of judicial accountability is gaining prominence in ongoing discussions. While independence is necessary, judges also must be responsible for their actions. The challenge lies in ensuring accountability without compromising independence, a balance that authorities actively work to manage.

Challenges to Independence and Accountability

Despite strong constitutional safeguards, challenges to judicial independence persist. Political pressures, delays in judicial proceedings, and concerns regarding the appointment and transfer of judges can undermine the system's integrity.

In recent years, debates around increasing transparency in the appointment process have intensified. Advocates argue for a more balanced approach to preserve judicial integrity while making the selection process more accountable.

II. The High Courts

High Courts (HC) are the highest judicial bodies at the State level.

Feature	Details & Articles
Appointment	Article 217: Appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the State Governor, and the Chief Justice of that High Court.
Transfer of Judges	Article 222: The President can transfer a judge from one HC to another after consulting the CJI.
Writ Jurisdiction	Article 226: Power to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and any other legal rights (wider scope than Art. 32).
Superintendence	Article 227: Every HC has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction (except military courts).

Final Thoughts

The Indian judiciary under the Constitution illustrates a complex mix of power, appointment, and independence. The Supreme Court and High Courts are fundamental in upholding justice, interpreting laws, and protecting citizens' fundamental rights.

As India evolves as a democratic nation, dialogues about balancing judicial independence and accountability remain crucial. This balance is essential for a fair and impartial judiciary, fostering a legal environment where justice can flourish.

By grasping the intricacies of the Indian judiciary, we can appreciate its role not just as a guardian of the Constitution but as a vital pillar of democracy that demands continual vigilance and reform to adapt to the demands of a changing society.