BEYOND THE GAVEL: THE POLITICS SHAPING INDIA'S JUDICIARY

Author: Samrudhi Bharat Pol, Government Law College, Churchgate, Mumbai.

This article delves into the complex relationship between the branches of government. It explores how political considerations intersect with legal processes and influence judicial decisions. Indian judiciary is seen as a branch of justice that upholds rule of law, and safeguards constitutional principles. Therefore, political influence on judges can be a huge threat to the judicial system. This article scrutinizes the intricate relationship between politics and India’s judiciary, analyzing how political forces shape judicial appointments, decisions, and institutional integrity. By examining historical developments, landmark cases, and recent controversies, the paper highlights the evolving role of the judiciary in a democratic society where political dynamics continually intersect with legal processes. This article further analyzes how political influence on judiciary can affect public trust and balance of power within India's democratic framework. Ultimately it sheds light offering insights on how the judiciary can maintain its autonomy while navigating the political landscape.

Judicial Independence, Doctrine of checks and balances, political landscape, public perception, judicial autonomy, 42nd constitutional amendment, NJAC.

"Judicial independence is not only a prerequisite for democracy; it is also essential for the effective functioning of any legal system."

                                                                                                          —M. Cherif Bassiouni.

The constitution of India follows separation of power but not a complete one, it applies the doctrine of checks and balances. Each and every organ enjoys its independence to a certain limit while keeping checks on the other. Judiciary stands as a pillar between the state and the citizens to ensure that no fundamental rights of people are being violated and justice is served fairly and impartially. If “impartiality” is the essence of the judiciary, then “independence” is what sustains it. Freedom from external political pressure, influential people and prejudices will provide a proper judicial environment for judges to work with absolute commitment to withhold the spirit of law. It is important for the judiciary to be independent in order to uphold the integrity of law. 

Judiciary plays a prime role in delivering justice, a problem arises when other two organs start interfering in its work for their own interests which undermines the public's trust in the justice system. External interference not only impacts on justice and erodes public trust but also curtails individuals of their fundamental rights. Sometimes political petitions are given more priority compared to cases involving the real problem of needy people.  

Independence of judiciary means judges should be independent while passing judgements and not coming under government or any other influence. Judiciary is considered as guardian of the constitution meaning it has the power of judicial review which entitles them to strike down any law or act passed by legislature or declare them unconstitutional. These might create conflict between these two branches of government, leaving the judiciary the third pillar of democracy to be in a perplexing position.

The main aim of this literature review is to examine the complex relationship between judiciary and political landscape in India. Its purpose is to critically analyze how political changes influence the independence of the judiciary and their decision making process, undermining the public's perception about the judiciary.

Since independence there is significant evolution in India’s judicial system that reflects dynamic interplay between law, politics and society. These are certain key constitutional provisions that provide a framework for judicial review, and act as custodian of the constitution to protect fundamental rights of the people: -

1] Article 13: - This article allows the judiciary to declare any law unconstitutional that is ultra vires to the constitution.

2] Article 32: - This article makes the judiciary the protector of the individual rights, as it allows people to approach the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated (constitutional remedies).

3] Article 226: - This article gives power to the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. Expanding further the scope of judiciary on state level.

4] Article 141: - This article makes law or precedents declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within the territory of India, reinforcing judicial authority over the territory of India.

These are certain powers and authority given to the judiciary by the constitution of India but there have been significant political milestones that have affected the judiciary in history. Those are: -

• The 42nd constitutional amendment 1976 was passed during the emergency period so that the courts could not challenge the amendment which primarily aimed to centralize the power of the government. This amendment involved certain clauses that would exclude some laws from judicial scrutiny raising alarm on judicial independence, as the laws passed during emergency curtails individual rights creating a chilling effect on judges while making decisions. This amendment had a clause that certain laws cannot be challenged in courts which prioritized legislature over judiciary and imposed certain restrictions on fundamental rights of citizens, defecting judiciary’s duty as protector of fundamental rights of people.

• Judiciary played an active role during the post emergency period. Minerva mills Vs union of India 1980 can be seen as an example where the judiciary reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure and declared certain provisions of 42nd constitutional amendment as null and void limiting the amending power of the parliament.

• The judicial controversy that arose when the legislature made several attempts to control judicial powers. The supreme court's decision in three judges case in 1993 gave a significant role to the judiciary in appointing and transferring judges was an attempt to stop executive interference in judicial proceedings. The introduction of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) which the government claimed to bring transparency and accountability in judicial work was struck down by the Supreme court reinforcing its independence. This was the response to raising concerns over executive interference in judicial appointments.

• The Public Interest litigation (PIL) Movement in 1980 marked a shift in judicial approach. The Supreme Court started to take up cases involving public interest such as poverty, pollution, environmental degradation, etc. Which indirectly fostered the executive’s inability to curb the same.

Each country has unique historical and political contexts, the challenges faced by the judiciary in India resonate with those in other democracies. The  USA’s judiciary is also designed to be independent but it certainly faces political intervention. Their activism can be seen in the case of Roe v. Wade, which involved individual rights and liberties. This reflects India's own activism in PIL cases. Brazil's judiciary has played an active role in political matters by intervening in political corruption cases; this is parallel to India’s judiciary in stepping into governance issues. In Brazil, judges of the supreme court are appointed by the president and approved by the senate, same as in the US , leading to political favoritism and affecting judicial independence.  

Across the globe, many countries face similar challenges when it comes to the relationship between politics and the judiciary. In India, just like in places like the United States and Brazil  we see how political influences can shape judicial decisions, raising important questions about independence. The trend of judicial activism—where courts take an active role in addressing social issues—is also a shared experience, highlighting how crucial it is for the judiciary to remain strong and impartial.

This research employs a qualitative methodology, Additionally the research will not involve any data from human subjects. Instead, the primary and secondary materials will include legal documents, media articles, court records, case laws.

The thematic analysis will involve a systematic approach to identifying recurring themes related to political influence within the judiciary. Key themes will include judicial independence, political interference, the role of landmark rulings, and the impact of political appointments on judicial behavior. It will direct the overarching question of how politics shapes judicial processes.

This comparative approach will enable an evaluation of patterns and discrepancies not only within India but also in other countries to assess how politics affects the judicial system. By identifying similarities and differences in judicial responses to political pressures across different contexts, the research will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relationship between the judiciary and political dynamics in India.

In a country like India, where politics can sometimes become a tool for misusing authority, the courts step in as protectors of the Constitution and fundamental rights. There are certain case laws that provide a comprehensive view of how the judiciary in India interacts with political forces. Those are as follows:-

1}S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): -  In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the president's power to dismiss a state government comes under the purview of judicial review. At that time, the central government wiped out the state government by dismissing state assemblies and replacing them with politically aligned administrators.The Court essentially said, “Not so fast. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s fair.” The Court brought attention to the fact that such actions couldn’t be carried out merely based on political whims; they had to be justified on constitutional grounds. This emphasizes the judicial role in curbing political misuse of power at state level especially with respect to dismissal of state government.

2} Bharatiya Janata Party v. State of Bihar (1996): - This case deals with the government misusing its power to suppress its political opponents and the judiciary stepping in to prevent political misuse of power under the name of governance. The center point of this case was the argument that the ruling government in Bihar, at the time, was leveraging government power to manipulate political outcomes. It certainly created an environment where fairness and democratic principles were compromised for political purposes. The judiciary, in this case, was acting as a protector of political fairness ensuring that elections and political processes were not skewed by the misuse of power.

3}Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973): - This case was a direct response to the government's attempts to limitlessly amend the constitution undermining judiciary's power to review and legally infringing fundamental rights of people. In the context of judicial activism this case significantly reflects the judiciary's role in guarding against political encroachment on constitutional values. This case established the doctrine of basic structure stating that the very fabric of the constitution should not be amended by the legislature protecting constitutional principles like fundamental rights, democracy, rule of law, separation of power from political overreach. This case resulted in controversy and  laid down a profound impact on the relationship between the judiciary and the executive particularly in terms of the judiciary's independence when the post of chief justice of India was vacant and three senior most judges were surpassed and justice A.N Roy was made chief justice of india. The judges case (1993) which followed from Kesavananda bharati primarily dealt with judicial appointments and reaffirmed the collegium system to safeguard judicial independence from political control.

4} Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015): - This case is popularly known as NJAC case which deals with constitutionality of National Judicial Appointment Commission, whether the 99th constitutional amendment violated judicial independence which is one of the fundamental principles of Indian democracy. IN this case it was argued that NJAC would undermine the judicial autonomy by giving executive and legislature primary roles in judicial appointments posing a serious threat to judicial independence. The Supreme court upheld its principles by striking down NJAC and the 99th constitutional amendment by declaring it unconstitutional as it violates basic structure doctrine particularly, principle of judicial independence. The judges understood that if given authority the government might start using its power to manipulate the judiciary, making it less of a check on power and more of a tool for political agendas. So, in simple terms, the Supreme Court's decision was about making sure that judges could do their job impartially without fear of political interference so that justice in India remains fair, free, and independent. It is like ensuring that rule of law is never compromised no matter how much power a branch of government might have.

In India's democratic journey, the judiciary has proven that it's not only interpreter of laws but also protectors of fundamental rights of citizens. It plays an active role in shaping nations political landscape as seen in Kesavananda bharati and NJAC case. The judiciary has consistently demonstrated its role as a check on political overreach, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over political motives. The story of India's judiciary is not merely one of law and order but of values—values that protect the democratic spirit, the rule of law, and the rights of citizens against any encroachment, political or otherwise. 

The future of the judiciary depends on how actively it plays its role in guarding the constitution, protecting people's rights and ultimately acting “beyond the gavel.”

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of India's democratic system. It ensures that the judges are free from external pressure and make decisions fairly and impartially. Judiciary and executive are both important branches of government, none of them is superior or beyond the other. The proper balance between both the branches is necessary for the functioning of the government. In order to ensure this balance and judicial freedom some things can be improvised those are as follows: -

1] Appointment of judges: - The process of appointment of judges has evolved over time. As per Article 124(1) The president of India appoints judges to supreme court but judiciary contributes a significant part in its own appointments. The collegium system which came into force after the first judge’s case is the best option for judicial appointment where the chief justice of India and senior most judges play an important role in recommending and transferring the judges. This helps make sure that the judiciary can function independently, delivering fair and impartial judgments without being influenced by outside political pressures. It ensures that decisions are based solely on the law and facts, rather than any external agendas.

2] Security of tenure: - The tenure of supreme court judges is secured as per Article 124(2). The judge will continue to hold his office until he attains the age of 65. He can only be removed by the process of impeachment after receiving ⅔ majority (special majority) in both the houses only on the grounds of proven misbehavior and incapacity. This provision makes it extremely difficult to remove a judge without overwhelming evidence of misconduct, protecting the judiciary from arbitrary dismissals or political influence.

3] Power of judicial review: - The power of judicial review helps in preserving judicial independence, Establishing that no branch of government will transcend the other. The doctrine of basic structure that was put forward in Kesavananda bharati case also includes judicial independence in it forbidding parliament's power to amend it. Article 13 of the Constitution allows the judiciary to review laws that violate fundamental rights. Judicial review is an essential mechanism that ensures that all laws passed by the legislature conform to the Constitution.

4] Financial Independence: - The judiciary is funded independently through the Consolidated Fund of India, as per Article 112. The salaries and allowances of judges should be fixed and should not be open to changes during their tenure; this will safeguard them and provide financial autonomy. This will guarantee that the legislature can not manipulate judicial work by controlling their financial sources.

The judicial independence in India is protected by the constitution and basic structure doctrine that legally safeguards judicial decisions. The appointment process, security tenure, power of judicial review, Financial independence will all together affirm that the judiciary works fairly and impartially without external pressure from the other two branches of the government. By maintaining these safeguards, the judiciary can work effectively to serve as custodian of the constitution.

1. 42nd constitutional amendment, 1976, Acts of parliament, 1976 (India).

2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789,(India).

3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, (India).

4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1,AIR 1994 (India).

5. Bharatiya Janata Party v. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 418, AIR 1996 SC 1115,(India).

6. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225, AIR 1973 SC 1461( India).

7. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2015) 4 SCC 1,(India).