Judicial Independence -

Context and Background

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered remarks at ILS Law College, Pune. He warned that judicial credibility is essential for preserving the judiciary’s legitimacy.

Core Constitutional Principles

Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution, described as non-negotiable.
Credibility sustains the relevance and moral authority of courts in democratic governance.
Courts lack the power of the purse or sword, relying on public trust for legitimacy.
Judges must avoid appearing to justify denial of liberty or human rights.

Collegium Decision and Executive Role

The collegium changed a transfer recommendation after a “reconsideration sought by the government.”
Justice Atul Sreedharan was shifted from Madhya Pradesh High Court to Allahabad High Court.
Justice Bhuyan termed this a clear intrusion of executive influence.
He stressed transfers are an internal judicial matter, beyond Central government authority.

Safeguarding Democratic Values

Judges should stand erect against political whims, quoting Caroline Kennedy.
Decisions should not appear predetermined by bench composition.
Political and ideological leanings must not cloud judicial reasoning.
Constitutional morality ensures liberty and justice are protected from majoritarian power.

Institutional Integrity and Public Faith

Judicial independence is guarded by judges themselves, not security forces.
Breach of public faith would leave the judiciary institutionally hollow.
Justice Bhuyan cited CJI Harilal J. Kania’s guidance on staying aloof from party politics. The courts must remain neutral, sympathetic to all, and allied to none.

Broader Implications

Executive interference risks weakening the collegium’s original purpose.
Judicial credibility underpins democracy, rights protection, and rule of law.
Maintaining independence preserves public confidence in constitutional governance.

Collegium System

Judicial mechanism for appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court (SC) and High Courts (HCs).
Not mentioned in the Constitution; evolved through Supreme Court judgments.
Based on the “Three Judges Cases” doctrine.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 124(2): SC judges appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI and other judges.
- Article 217: HC judges appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, Governor, and HC Chief Justice.
- Article 126: Appointment of Acting CJI by the President (senior-most SC judge).
- Article 127: Ad hoc SC judge from HC if quorum unavailable (with President’s consent).
- Article 128: Retired SC judge may sit temporarily (with President’s consent).

Evolution of Collegium

First Judges Case (1981)
- Consultation ≠ Concurrence
- Gave primacy to the Executive in judicial appointments.
Second Judges Case (1993)
- Overruled 1981 verdict.
- Judicial primacy established.
- CJI’s recommendation made binding after consulting two senior-most SC judges.
- Collegium System formalised.
Third Judges Case (1998)
- Expanded Collegium.
- CJI must consult four senior-most SC judges.

Present Structure

Role of Government

Appointment Process

Chief Justice of India
- Recommended by outgoing CJI.
- Convention: Senior-most SC judge.
Supreme Court Judges
- Initiated by CJI.
- Consultation with Collegium and senior-most HC judge of the candidate’s parent HC.
- Proposal → Law Minister → Prime Minister → President.
High Court Judges / Chief Justice
- Recommendation by HC Collegium.
- Consulted by CJI and State Governor.
- Forwarded through Union Law Ministry → PM → President.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

Created by 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014.
Aimed to replace Collegium System.
Struck down by Supreme Court (2015) for violating judicial independence.

Judicial Independence