It is freely acknowledged that in all democratic countries, judicial independence is necessary and important to the freeway of human life. There can be no justice, no rule of law, no fundamental rights of citizenship and no federalism without it. It was a view in the past that judicial independence means the appointment of the judges in the strict basis of their legal activities, integrity and independence of character. The Government had no powers to directly or indirectly influence them regarding interpretation of the law. IN those days the law was simple and the judges did not have very complicated problems to solve. But in the light of the Democratic set up in India, the question of preserving of the supremacy of the supreme court or judicial independence had been raised in pointed manner.
The crucial question is whether the judges should be appointed on the basis of their qualifications or taking into account thier political views. IN our country, it is generally avoided to make appointment in the light of a candidate political views. Only eminent judges, advocates and jurists have been recruited for Judicial posts.
But recently there has been accusation that the Government wants a committed judiciary , in the sense that the judiciary should be commiitted to the philosophy of the ruling party. it is pointed that the Government wants judiciary, which is committed to the Constitution. The accusation is refuted by the ruling Government saying that judges are not like the Supermen or Gods, with no opinions, predilections or prejudices. They are like other men with a social philosophy. To say that a judge has no outlook, no political opinion, no prejudices. They are like other men with a social philosophy. To say that a judge has no outlook, no political opinion, no prejudices is to ignore realities. There are number of cases which show that the supreme court has continued to change its mind from time to time , creating great difficulties for those concerned with the implementation o public policy. The Government’s decision to supercede Senior judges and appoint a junior to them has been criticised both by lawyers and the press on the ground that it is has impaired the Judicial independence.
Judicial Independence is a highly controversial issue. IN seeking solution to the problem of achieving and preserving Judicial Independence, we should avoid thinking about foreign examples and precedents. We have to think of the solution from our democratic point of view. Basically there is nothing wrong in selecting politicians for high judicial appointments , if they have legal talents of a very high order but it is better and safer if appointments are made from among eminent jurists. The Government complaints that the conflicting judgements of the Supreme Court have upset the Government when their legislative measures are declared ultra vires of the Constitution. These judgements are counter to thier political philosophy.
The main thing is that no body wants a committed Judiciary neither the Government nor the opposition; Every one is in agreement that the Judiciary must be strictly impartial. The judges should be committed only to the constitution, which provides both for fundamental rights and liberties of individuals and a social order on socialisc values. in our Constitutional system, differences between Government and the Judiciary can be easily resolved either by the legilsature modifying the invalidated law in the light of the supreme court Judgement or by amending the Constitution. No disrespect of the supreme court is involved by this.
