The Indian Judiciary, as laid down in Part V (Chapter IV) and Part VI (Chapter VI) of the Constitution, is a vital organ of the State, entrusted with the duty of safeguarding the rule of law, upholding constitutional values, and acting as the guardian of the Constitution. The judiciary operates as an independent and impartial body, ensuring that both the executive and legislature operate within their constitutional boundaries.
Constitutional Framework
Part V deals with the Union Judiciary (Supreme Court), while Part VI addresses the State Judiciary (High Courts and Subordinate Courts).
Key Articles:
- Article 124–147: Supreme Court of India
- Article 214–231: High Courts
- Article 233–237: Subordinate Judiciary
The framework defines appointment, powers, jurisdiction, tenure, and removal processes of judges at both levels.
Composition and Appointment
- The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and up to 33 other judges (Article 124).
- The High Court is headed by a Chief Justice with other judges as deemed necessary (Article 216).
Appointments to the higher judiciary follow the Collegium System, developed through judicial pronouncements such as the Three Judges Cases, and involve recommendations by a body of senior judges, ensuring judicial independence.
Independence of Judiciary
Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution (as per S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149). It is protected through:
- Fixed service conditions
- Security of tenure
- Power to punish for contempt (Article 129, 215)
- Separation from the executive (Article 50 – Directive Principle)
Jurisdiction and Powers
Supreme Court:
- Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)
- Appellate Jurisdiction (Article 132–134A)
- Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)
- Review and Curative Powers
- Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32)
High Courts:
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broader than Article 32 (can enforce legal as well as fundamental rights)
- Supervisory Jurisdiction (Article 227)
Landmark Judgments
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461: Established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149: Asserted judicial independence.
- S.C. Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1: Struck down the NJAC and upheld the Collegium system.
- Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1: Upheld the constitutionality of National Company Law Tribunal, showing judiciary’s role in quasi-judicial administration.
Comparative Insight
Unlike India’s integrated judicial system, the U.S. follows a dual system—separate state and federal courts. In the U.K., Parliamentary sovereignty limits judicial review, unlike India where courts can strike down unconstitutional laws.
Real-life Examples
- The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Pegasus spyware case (2021) reflects its role in protecting citizens’ fundamental rights.
- High Courts have increasingly used Article 226 to curb administrative excesses and ensure fair governance at the state level.
For legal news and updates from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and more, visit legallypresent.in.
Contemporary Relevance
- Increasing public interest litigation (PIL) highlights the judiciary’s activist stance.
- Concerns over judicial delays and pendency of cases raise questions about efficiency.
- The digitization of courts and virtual hearings during COVID-19 mark significant reformative trends.
Scholarly Critique
While the Indian judiciary is praised for its proactive role, scholars critique the opacity of the Collegium System and the overreach in matters reserved for the legislature (judicial activism vs. judicial overreach). The Law Commission of India and various parliamentary committees have suggested reforms to enhance transparency, accountability, and accessibility.
For internships, legal jobs, and opportunity updates, check lawfer.in.
Conclusion
The Indian Judiciary under Part V and VI forms the backbone of constitutional governance. Its independence, authority, and integrity have preserved democracy and upheld the Constitution. However, structural reforms, increased transparency in appointments, and better infrastructure are essential for enhancing its credibility and effectiveness in the 21st century.