Independence, Overreach, and Accountability: The Delicate Balance of the Indian Judiciary скачать в хорошем качестве

Independence, Overreach, and Accountability: The Delicate Balance of the Indian Judiciary

The Indian judiciary stands as a crucial pillar of democracy, tasked with upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. But how does the Supreme Court and High Courts maintain neutrality while remaining answerable to the public? This video delves into the foundational concepts, constitutional safeguards, and contemporary debates surrounding the functioning of the judiciary, exploring the constant tension between *independence* and *accountability**, and the fine line between **judicial activism* and **judicial overreach**. #### *Core Constitutional Pillars: Independence & Accountability* Judicial Independence means judges must decide cases **without fear or favour**, free from political or personal pressure. This autonomy is protected by several constitutional safeguards: *Security of Tenure:* Judges cannot be removed except by the rigorous process of impeachment based on 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' (Article 124(4)). *Financial Independence:* Judicial expenses are protected by being charged on the Consolidated Fund, preventing Parliament from voting to reduce them. *Separation of Powers:* Article 50 directs the state to keep the judiciary separate from the executive. *Appointment System:* The *Collegium system* ensures insulation from executive dominance, a principle reaffirmed in the NJAC Judgement 2015. However, this freedom must be balanced by accountability mechanisms to prevent arbitrary functioning. These include: *Impeachment* (Article 124(4)). The **Judges Inquiry Act, 1968**, which provides the formal investigation procedure. The use of *Review and Curative petitions* to correct judicial errors. The Office of the CJI comes under the **RTI Act**, subject to limitations on sensitive matters. #### *The Spectrum of Interference: Restraint vs. Overreach* Understanding the judiciary’s role in governance requires examining the concepts of Judicial Restraint and Judicial Overreach. *Judicial Restraint:* This philosophy encourages courts to limit their interference, defer to the elected executive/legislature, and interpret laws strictly to maintain the separation of powers and democratic legitimacy. Cases like *S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)* demonstrated balanced restraint. *Judicial Overreach:* This occurs when the judiciary crosses its boundaries, enters the domain of policy-making, or intervenes in administrative decisions, often described as "legislating from the bench". While activism (like creating the *Vishaka Guidelines* in 1997 to fill a legal vacuum) can be necessary due to executive inaction, **overreach weakens democratic accountability**. *Key Case Studies Discussed:* *2G Spectrum Case (2012):* Seen by some as significant overreach into economic policy after the SC cancelled telecom licences. *National Anthem Order (2016):* Mandating the playing of the anthem was deemed clear judicial overreach. *Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006):* Court-ordered police reforms, interpreted by critics as entering the executive domain. *BCCI Reforms:* The Supreme Court restructured the BCCI, acting like a regulator of a private body (interpretation: overreach). #### *Conclusion: Maintaining the Balance* The Constitution aims for a system where judges are free from pressure but subject to checks, ensuring public confidence. The contemporary challenge lies in reforming systems like the Collegium to achieve greater transparency without compromising judicial autonomy, while also addressing issues like rising case pendency and the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The goal remains a strong, impartial, and responsible judiciary where all organs of government work harmoniously. --- *#IndianJudiciary #JudicialIndependence #JudicialAccountability #JudicialOverreach #UPSCPolity #IndianConstitution #CollegiumSystem #Article124*