HIGHER JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: TUSSLE BETWEEN JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Executive, legislature and judiciary, the three organs of the government, need to be independent and accountable to each other as propounded by Montesqui’s Separation of Power doctrine and Checks and Balances. These doctrines are very much essential for good governance of any democratic country. Judiciary, being the protector and guardian of the constitution, which is the will of the people, is required to be more independent and outside the influence of the legislature and the executive. There have been many instances of conflict between the tripartite organs of the government. But, the ongoing tussle between the Judiciary and the executive regarding higher judicial appointments where the central law minister commented and criticized the present Collegium system of appointing judges as opaque, unaccountable and also is very firm in having representation of a member from the executive has once again raised the issue of Independence of Judiciary. This paper mainly emphasizes on the concept of Independence of judiciary its linkage to Rule of law. It also speaks about the higher judicial appointment and the conflict between the executive and the judiciary. This paper finally concludes with possible suggestions.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
ARISTOTLE, POLITICS iv:14:1(1297b35)/165 (Tr. Ernest Barker and Rvd. Intr. and Notes R.F. Stalley).
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, FEDERALIST NO.78 at 402. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf
DAVID PANNICK, JUDGES 204-5 (1t ed. 1987/1988).
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, CONSTITUTIONAL MISCELLANY 277, (2d ed. 2003).
ARCHIBALD COX, THE COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION 171-72.
Sam Ervin, Jr., Separation of Powers: Judicial Independence, 35 LAW AND CONTEMP. PROBL. 108, 121 (1970).https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3279&context=lcp
PAUL JACKSON & PATRICIA LEOPOLD, O. HOOD PHILLIPS AND JACKSON CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 431 (8h ed. 2001 (South Asian ed. 2015).
A.V. DICEY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 409-10 (10h ed. 1959).
TOM BINGHAM, LIVES OF THE LAW: SELECTED ESSAYS AND SPEECHES 2000-2010, 71- 72.
R.F.V. HEUSTON, ESSAYS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 52-3 (2d Ed. 1964).
PROFESSOR P. ISHWARA BHAT, DURGA DAS BASU LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 85.
Madras Bar Assn v Union of India, (2014) 10 S.S.C. 1, para 88 (India)..
PANNICK, Supra note 3 at 99.
RAM KISHORE CHAUDHURY & TAPASH GAN CHUDHURY eds. SELECTED SPEECHES AND WRITINGS OF JUSTICE BHAGWATI 276.
Id. at 277.
TAPASH GAN CHOUDHURY, PENUMBRA OF NATURAL JUSTICE 316 (3d ed. 2016).
A.D.M. Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 521, Para-594 (India).
H.R. KHANNA, MAKING OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTION 538-39.
S.H. BAILEY & M.J. GUNN eds. SMITH & BAILEY ON THE MODERN ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM239 (3d ed.).
CHAUDHURY, supra note 15.
R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 K.B. 256.
PANNICK, supra note 3 at 39.
JACKSON, supra note 7 at 437.
BAILEY, supra note 20.
TAPASH, supra note 17 at 228.
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, THE COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: SUMMITS AND SHALLOWS 207 (2008).
BAILEY, supra note 20.d ed. 1966).
S.P. SATHE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 192 (7h ed. 2004).
U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS 40/32 (29.11.1985) & 40/146 (13.12.1985).
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/independencejudiciary.aspx
PROFESSOR P. ISHWARA BHAT, DURGA DAS BASU LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 85 (2016).
PANNICK, supra note 3 at 44-5.
K.K. MATHEW, THREE LECTURES 23.
BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO, THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 168 (1961).
CHAUDHURY, supra note 15.
JACKSON, supra note 7 at 29.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Rule of Law: Its Ambit and Dimension in N.R. MADHAVA MENON ed. RULE OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY 3.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/origin-and-concept-of-rule-of-law- administrative-law-essay.php
Id.
JACKSON, supra note 7 at 30.
BLOG, supra note 40.
HEUSTON, supra note 10 at 33.
BINGHAM, supra note 9 at 9.
HEUSTON, supra note 10 at 33.
BINGHAM, supra note 9 at 54.
Gerald F. Gaus, Public Reason and The Rule Of Law in IAN SHAPIRO ed. THE RULE OF LAW 328.
Michael P. Zuckert, Hobbes, Locke, and The Problem Of The Rule Of Law in IAN SHAPIRO ed. THE RULE OF LAW 63.
DICEY, supra note 8 at 183-203.
Id. at xxv.
SIR ALFRED DENNING, THE CHANGING LAW 4 (1t ed., 1953).
CHAUDHURY, supra note 15.
J.S. Verma, Judicial Independence: Is It Threatened? in SANTOSH PAL ed. CHOOSING HAMMURABI: DEBATES ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS159.
SIR THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND, THE ELEMENTS OF JURISPRUDENCE 19
JUSTICE M. RAMA JOIS, LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF INDIA: ANCIENT LEGAL, JUDICIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM 10.
Ramesh YeshwantPrabhoo v P.K. Kunte, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 113 paras 32-45. Quoted: M. RAMA JOIS, DHARMA: THE GLOBAL ETHIC, 2 (2deEd. 1997).
RAMA JOIS, SEEDS OF MODERN PUBLIC LAW IN ANCIENT INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE 49- 52 (2d ed. 2000).
DR. P.B. VIJAYA KUMAR, DYNAMICS OF JUSTICE a la SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 228-30.
JOIS, supra note 58 at 169-70.
V.V. GIRI, SPEECHES OF PRESIDENT V.V.GIRI (MAY 1969–DECEMBER 1971) 58 (1974).
JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY, CEASELESS AND RELENTLESS JOURNEY 17.
https://www.bartleby.com/3/1/56.html
Id.
PANNICK, supra note 3.
IYER, supra note 4.
ABHINAV CHANDRACHUD, THE INFORMAL CONSTITUTION: UNWRITTEN CRITERIA IN SELECTING JUDGES FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 72.
CHINNAPPA, supra note 27 at 303.
GUPTA, supra note 12.
SATHE, supra note at 535.
NARIMAN, supra note 73 at 31.
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION 7.3.3.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India,A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 268 (India).
NARIMAN, supra note 73 at 31.
Id.
NCRWC, supra note 122 at 7.3.5.
In Re Presidential Reference, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1 (India).
K.N. BHAT, D. CHRONOICLEC, Aug 8, 2014.
NCRWC, supra note 122 at 7.3.5.
CHINNAPPA, supra note at 305.
JUSTICE V.R. KRISHNA IYER, THE CONSTITUTION CORRUPTION, PATHOLOGICAL CASUALTIES AND RADICAL REMEDIES, REFORMS 143.
A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299 (India).
NALINI GERA, RAM JETHMALANI: THE AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY 327.
https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-kiren-rijiju-collegium-system
C.K. ALLEN, LAW & ORDERS 4 (3d ed. 1965).