Judicial Independence Can Be Sustained Only When Incumbents Are Assured Fair Service Conditions, Security Of Tenure : Supreme Court

If "impartiality" is the soul of the judiciary, "independence" is the lifeblood of the judiciary, remarked the Supreme Court in its judgment in Tribunals case.The bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao observed that security of tenure and of service are core components of independence of the judiciary. The court added that any incursion into the judicial domain by the other two wings of the Government would be unconstitutional. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented from the majority of Justice Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat on the point of validity of the amendments brought by the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021.The majority observed that the fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, includes a right to have the person's rights adjudicated by a forum which exercises judicial power in an impartial and independent manner.The court made these observations while holding that Section 184(11) of Finance Act, 2017, prescribing tenure of four years is contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The main contention in the writ petition filed by Madras Bar Association was that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 is ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, apart from being contrary to the principles laid down in this regard, by the Supreme Court. Also, the Attorney General had made a submission that there is no single provision which expressly articulates independence of the judiciary. Therefore, the court cannot direct the length of tenure or other eligibility conditions which are in the domain of the executive, (which, as a co-equal organ of governance) is exclusively entitled to prescribe criteria for selection of tribunal members.Justice Rao, in his judgment, quotes the views of Alexander Hamilton, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Granville Austin the idea of independence of judiciary. On Article 50 of the Constitution, he observed thus:"Article 50 of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. The concept of separation of judiciary from executive cannot be confined only to the subordinate judiciary, totally discarding the higher judiciary. If such a narrow and pedantic or syllogistic approach is made and a constricted construction is given, it would lead to an anomalous position that the Constitution does not emphasise the separation of higher judiciary from the executive. Article 50, occurring in a chapter described by Granville Austin as "the conscience of the Constitution" in his work titled 'The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation', underlines the importance given by the Constitution makers to immunize the judiciary from any form of executive control or interference."The judge observed that an independent judiciary is the most essential characteristic of a free society and the judiciary which is to act as a bastion of the rights and freedom of the people. An independent and efficient judicial system has been recognised as a part of the basic structure of our Constitution, he added. Some of the observations made in this regard are reproduced below.Without independence, impartiality cannot thrive29. Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision-making are the hallmarks of the judiciary. If "impartiality" is the soul of the judiciary, "independence" is the lifeblood of the judiciary. Without independence, impartiality cannot thrive. Independence is not the freedom for Judges to do what they like. It is the independence of judicial thought. It is the freedom from interference and pressures which provides the judicial atmosphere where he can work with absolute commitment to the cause of justice and constitutional values. It is also the discipline in life, habits and outlook that enables a Judge to be impartial. Its existence depends however not only on philosophical, ethical or moral aspects but also upon several mundane things—security in tenure, freedom from ordinary monetary worries, freedom from influences and pressures within (from others in the judiciary) and without (from the executive). The independence of an individual Judge, that is, decisional independence; and independence of the judiciary as an institution or an organ of the State, that is, functional independence are the broad concepts of the principle of independence of the judiciary/ tribunal.Important attributes of institutional independence.30. Individual independence has various facets which include security of tenure,...

Judicial Independence Can Be Sustained Only When Incumbents Are Assured Fair Service Conditions, Security Of Tenure : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags