Political Science: Class 11 (Book 2) — Chapter 6: Chapter Six: JUDICIARY

• Non-Involvement of Legislature: The legislature plays no role in the appointment of judges, minimizing party-political influence.
• Security of Tenure: Judges have a fixed tenure until retirement. They can only be removed through an exceptionally difficult constitutional process.
• Financial Independence: Salaries and allowances of judges are charged directly to the Consolidated Fund and are not subject to legislative vote.
• Immunity from Criticism: Judicial actions and decisions are immune from personal criticism. The courts hold the power to penalize for contempt of court .
• Restrictions on Parliament: Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges except during active removal proceedings.

• Chief Justice of India (CJI): Historically, a convention existed where the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as CJI. This convention was broken twice: in 1973 (appointment of A. N. Ray ) and in 1975 (appointment of M. H. Beg ).
• The Collegium System: Developed through a series of Supreme Court decisions between 1982 and 1998. The court established that the CJI must recommend names for appointment in consultation with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, creating the principle of collegiality.

• Grounds for Removal: A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can only be removed on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Procedural Rigour: Requires a motion approved by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting).

In 1991, the first-ever motion to remove a Supreme Court Justice was initiated against Justice V. Ramaswami, who was accused of misappropriating funds during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Although an inquiry commission found him guilty of gross misuse of office, the parliamentary motion failed in 1992 because the Congress party abstained from voting, preventing the motion from securing the required absolute majority of the total strength of the House.

---

Political Analysis & Systemic Significance: This case demonstrates the extreme difficulty of removing a judge in India. It highlights how political dynamics and party positions in Parliament can shield a judge, reinforcing the high level of security of tenure provided by the Constitution to protect judicial independence.

• Original Jurisdiction: Resolves federal disputes directly (disputes between the Union and States, or among States) without going through lower courts.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Direct power to issue writs ( Habeas Corpus , Mandamus , Prohibition , Certiorari , Quo Warranto ) to protect Fundamental Rights.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: Highest court of appeal; hears appeals against High Court decisions in civil, criminal, or constitutional matters.
• Advisory Jurisdiction: The President can refer matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court for advice (Article 143). This advice is non-binding.
• Special Powers (Article 136): Can grant special leave to appeal against any judgment passed by any court in India.
• Article 137: Grants the Supreme Court the power to review its own judgments.
• Article 144: Mandates that all civil and judicial authorities in India must act in aid of the Supreme Court.

Traditionally, only an personally aggrieved individual could approach the court. PIL altered this by allowing public-spirited citizens, social organizations, or lawyers to file petitions on behalf of the poor, needy, and marginalized who cannot easily access the courts.

• Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar (1979): Addressed the plight of under-trial prisoners in Bihar who had spent more time in jail than the maximum punishment for their alleged offenses. This led to the release of thousands of prisoners.
• Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1980): A letter written by a prison inmate detailing the physical torture of prisoners was converted into a formal petition, establishing the practice of treating letters and telegrams as writ petitions.

• Positive Impacts: Democratized the judicial system; forced executive accountability; expanded the scope of rights (e.g., clean air, unpolluted water, decent living); introduced electoral reforms (requiring candidates to file affidavits of assets and education).
• Negative Impacts: Overburdened the courts with litigation; blurred the lines of separation of powers by involving courts in executive domains (e.g., pollution control, corruption investigations, municipal administration); created strains on the delicate balance of democratic governance.

A group of citizens files a PIL asking municipal authorities to remove slums to beautify a city and attract investment. Slum residents respond that eviction violates their right to life under Article 21, which they argue is more central to public interest than city beautification.

---

Political Analysis & Systemic Significance: This scenario highlights the complex policy dilemmas courts face under PILs. It forces the judiciary to balance competing claims of public interest—urban development versus basic human rights—demonstrating how judicial decisions can directly shape socio-economic policy.

• Definition: The power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of any law passed by the legislature. If a law is found inconsistent with the Constitution, it is declared unconstitutional and void.
• Constitutional Basis: Though the term "judicial review" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it is implicitly derived from Article 13 (laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void) and the court's role in federal disputes.

• Right to Property: Early conflicts arose when Parliament sought to restrict the right to property to implement land reforms, which the Supreme Court initially blocked as a violation of fundamental rights.
• Power to Amend the Constitution: Parliament asserted its supreme power to amend any part of the Constitution, while the judiciary sought to protect fundamental rights from being abridged.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or violate its Basic Structure .
• Impact on Property Rights: The court ruled that the right to property was not part of the basic structure, allowing Parliament to amend it (it was eventually removed from the list of Fundamental Rights in 1979).
• Judicial Supremacy: The court reserved the exclusive right to decide what constitutes the "basic structure" of the Constitution, establishing a permanent check on parliamentary power.

• Parliamentary Privileges: Unresolved questions remain regarding whether a person punished by the legislature for a breach of parliamentary privilege can seek protection from the courts.
• Mutual Criticism: Tensions persist when legislatures criticize judicial overreach, or when the judiciary issues instructions to legislatures regarding the conduct of legislative business.