The Impartial Judiciary: The Keystone of Democracy in India

A successful democracy rests on three pillars the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. The Judiciary holds the singular and sacred duty of acting as the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate sentinel of the Rule of Law. An impartial judiciary is not merely desirable; it is the fundamental keystone that prevents the arbitrary exercise of power by the other two branches, ensuring that governance is always compliant with constitutional mandates and the spirit of justice.

In India the commitment to an independent and impartial judiciary is deeply embedded in the Constitution itself. This impartiality is achieved through an elaborate framework designed to secure judicial independence, both institutionally and financially.

Pillar of Democracy: Securing Judicial Independence

The impartiality of the judiciary is a direct consequence of its independence. Independence means the judiciary is free from any interference or pressure either from the Executive (government) or the Legislature (Parliament/State Assemblies) in the decision-making process. The framers of the Constitution realized that without such security, judges could not hold the powerful accountable.

The Constitution of India ensures this independence through several express and implied provisions, predominantly centered around Articles 124 to 147 (Supreme Court) and Articles 214 to 237 (High Courts).

Constitutional Provisions Ensuring Independence

1. Security of Tenure (Article 124(2) and 217)

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure. They can only be removed by a complex process known as impeachment, grounded only on proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This is intentionally difficult to achieve, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.

• • Article 124(4): Outlines the removal process for a Supreme Court Judge (which applies to High Court Judges via Article 218), ensuring that judges do not live in fear of being arbitrarily dismissed by the executive power.
• • Statute: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 details the procedure for investigating charges and presenting an address for removal to the President, ensuring the process remains legal and transparent, not political.

2. Fixed Service Conditions (Article 125 and 221)

The salaries, privileges, allowances, and rights of judges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment, except during a financial emergency.

• • Article 125 (for SC) and Article 221 (for HC): These provisions ensure that judges are not subject to the financial control of the executive, which could otherwise be used as a coercive tool to influence judicial decisions. The salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India/State, meaning they are not subject to annual voting by the Legislature.

3. Separation of Powers (Article 50)

While Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy, it explicitly directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services. This principle forms the conceptual basis for an independent judiciary, preventing Executive officers from performing judicial functions and vice versa, thereby reducing the scope for political influence.

4. Power to Punish for Contempt (Article 129 and 215)

Both the Supreme Court (Article 129) and High Courts (Article 215) are Courts of Record and have the power to punish for their own Contempt.

• • Statute: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 formalizes this power. This provision is vital for judicial impartiality, as it protects judges from unwarranted public criticism, political attacks, or attempts to interfere with judicial proceedings, thereby safeguarding the dignity and authority necessary for impartial functioning.

5. Restriction on Practice after Retirement (Article 124(7))

A retired Supreme Court judge is prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority within the territory of India. This aims to ensure that judges, while hearing cases, are not influenced by the prospects of future employment after retirement, thus maintaining their impartiality.

Case Law on Appointments (The Collegium System):

The independence of the judiciary regarding appointments was definitively established in the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993). This ruling, and its clarification in the Third Judges Case (In re Special Reference 1 of 1998), established that the Chief Justice of India, along with the senior-most judges (the Collegium), holds primacy in the appointment process, effectively ensuring that the judiciary controls its own composition, free from executive discretion.

Functioning Impartially: The Role in a Democracy

An impartial judiciary is defined by its actions. Its primary functioning in a democracy revolves around its unique powers that keep the government and the law within constitutional boundaries.

1. Judicial Review: Upholding the Constitution

This is arguably the most critical function of the judiciary. Judicial Review is the power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders.

• • Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights shall be void.
• • Article 32 and Article 226: These articles grant the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, acting as the ultimate recourse for citizens whose rights are violated.

The power of judicial review culminated in the landmark judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine asserts that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute, and it cannot alter the basic features of the Constitution (which includes the Rule of Law and Judicial Review itself). This serves as the ultimate impartial check against legislative overreach.

2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Access to Justice

In the 1980s, the Indian judiciary pioneered Public Interest Litigation (PIL), relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi (the requirement that only an aggrieved party can approach the court). This was heralded by rulings like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), which opened the floodgates for PIL, allowing any citizen or social group to bring a matter of public importance before the court.

Pioneering cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which addressed the plight of undertrials, demonstrated the judiciary's proactive and impartial approach to enforcing fundamental rights for the marginalized, irrespective of their ability to afford legal representation.

3. Public Trust Doctrine: Trustee of Public Resources

The principle of impartiality extends beyond individual rights to the protection of shared public resources. The Public Trust Doctrine holds that the State, including its administrative machinery, is a fiduciary (trustee) of certain natural resources (like air, water, forests, and public land) for the free and unimpaired use of the general public.

The judiciary enforces this doctrine through its power of review. In landmark rulings like M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), the Supreme Court utilized this doctrine to hold that the State cannot alienate or destroy public resources for private use. By enforcing this fiduciary duty, the judiciary reinforces its role as an impartial custodian of collective societal rights against government and private misuse.

4. Protection of Federalism

The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in disputes between the Union and the States, or between two or more States. This role, defined under the Court's Original Jurisdiction (Article 131), requires absolute impartiality to maintain the federal balance necessary for India's diverse political structure.

Conclusion: The Public Trust

The impartiality of the Indian judiciary is not just a constitutional feature; it is a matter of public trust. When the public believes that the courts will decide without fear or favour, the faith in the democratic process remains strong, even when political institutions falter.

The constitutional safeguards—from the rigorous appointment process (guided by judicial consensus, as established in the Three Judges Cases) to the security of service conditions and the power of contempt—are designed solely to insulate the judge from external pressures. Ultimately, the successful functioning of Indian democracy, characterized by the maintenance of fundamental rights, the adherence of the government to its legal limits, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, hinges entirely upon the unwavering impartiality of its judicial system, fulfilling its role as the ultimate trustee under the Public Trust Doctrine.