The Judiciary

A public library introduces a rule: only people from one neighbourhood may use its reading room. A student challenges the exclusion. The council replies, “We made the rule, so we should decide whether it is fair.” What is missing from that arrangement?

The problem is bigger than finding a kind official. A person needs a way to question public power before an institution that can hear the dispute independently, apply the law and give reasons. This chapter asks how courts can do that—and how a powerful judiciary can itself remain accountable.

Curriculum: NCERT Class 11 Political Science, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6, “Judiciary”, Reprint 2026–27; CBSE Political Science 2026–27. The UK comparison and document investigation are enrichment. All practice situations here are original learning exercises, not official examination questions or predictions of a court decision.

The Judiciary

The judiciary is the system of courts that resolves legal disputes, interprets law and administers justice. Courts can hear disagreements between individuals, between a person and government, and between governments, within their respective powers. They also protect rights and examine whether public action stays within constitutional limits.

In the library example, a useful legal argument would identify the decision, the authority responsible, the relevant right or law, and the remedy requested. “I dislike this policy” and “this policy violates a legal requirement” are different claims. Courts must investigate the second rather than simply vote on which policy they prefer.

Why Do We Need An Independent Judiciary?

If the rule-maker could dismiss a judge for ruling against it, a hearing might look fair while the outcome remained controlled. Independence protects decision-making from improper pressure by governments, powerful organisations, litigants and other sources of influence. It also requires judges to decide impartially: independence from government is insufficient if a judge favours a wealthy litigant.

Independence does not mean judges stand above the Constitution. They must act within their jurisdiction, hear relevant arguments and explain decisions through law and evidence. Appeals, review where permitted, public examination of reasoning and a demanding removal process provide different forms of accountability. None is interchangeable with threatening a judge over an inconvenient decision.

Predict: should an unpopular judgment be enough to dismiss its judge?

No. That would make tenure depend on popularity or political approval. A decision can be criticised and challenged through appropriate legal procedures. Removal has specified grounds and a special constitutional process; disagreement with a result does not by itself establish those grounds.

Powers of the Judiciary

How can the independence of the judiciary be provided and protected?

Several arrangements work together. Appointment procedures seek appropriate judicial ability and independence. Security of tenure makes removal difficult. Constitutional provisions protect specified service conditions. The Constitution also directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services under Article 50.

Financial safeguards need precise language. Supreme Court judges’ salaries, allowances and pensions are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India: this expenditure is not submitted to Parliament’s annual vote, although it can be discussed. Parliament nevertheless has a law-making role concerning pay. Article 125 protects specified privileges, allowances and pension rights against disadvantageous changes after appointment. “Courts have no financial connection with legislatures” would therefore be misleading.

Parliament cannot ordinarily discuss a Supreme Court or High Court judge’s conduct in the discharge of duties, except on a motion seeking removal, under Article 121. This does not mean citizens must silently agree with every judgment. Fair comment on the merits of a case that has been heard and finally decided is protected by Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as the Supreme Court explains in its 27 April 2020 judgment. The protection is qualified; it is not a claim that every statement about a court is lawful.

Keep three ideas separate: independence concerns freedom from improper influence; impartiality concerns fair treatment of the parties; accountability concerns how power is explained, checked and corrected. A good court system needs all three.

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court stands at the top of India’s integrated judicial system. Its constitutional responsibilities include protecting fundamental rights, resolving specified disputes between governments, hearing eligible appeals and declaring law that binds courts across India. “Integrated” does not mean every case begins there or every disappointed litigant automatically reaches it.

What is the procedure of appointment of judges?

The President formally appoints Supreme Court judges. Under the collegium process described in the Supreme Court’s published appointment guide, recommendations for judges of the Court are made by the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, with the additional consultation arrangements described in that guide. The recommendation proceeds through the Union executive before presidential appointment. The appointment of the Chief Justice follows the convention of recommending the senior-most Supreme Court judge considered fit for the office.

This division matters: recommending, consulting and formally appointing are different acts. The five-member Supreme Court collegium should not be presented as the identical procedure for every appointment in every court. High Court appointments have their own stages and participants.

Article 124 sets eligibility for a Supreme Court judge: Indian citizenship and at least five years as a High Court judge, at least ten years as a High Court advocate, or recognition as a distinguished jurist in the President’s opinion. The experience provisions allow service in two or more High Courts in succession and contain further counting rules. Supreme Court judges retire at 65; High Court judges at 62. These constitutional ages are different from the retirement ages of other public offices.

How can a Judge be removed from their Judicial Position?

For a Supreme Court judge, Article 124(4) requires a presidential order following an address by each House of Parliament in the same session, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In each House, support must satisfy two conditions together: a majority of its total membership, and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. The constitutional removal arrangement also applies to High Court judges through Article 217.

These are two gates, not two alternative routes. In a fictional chamber with a total membership of 100, if 60 members are present and vote, 40 supporters reach two-thirds of those voting. They still fall short of the required majority of the total membership: at least 51. In that example 51 affirmative votes would satisfy both numerical conditions, but numbers alone would not replace the required grounds, procedure, other House’s address or presidential order.

Change one number: 90 members vote. Would 51 supporters now pass both gates?

No. A majority of the total 100 still requires 51, but two-thirds of 90 requires 60. Both conditions must be met, so this chamber would need at least 60 affirmative votes. These invented numbers explain the rule; they are not the membership or voting record of either Indian House.

High Court

High Courts operate within the integrated system and exercise important constitutional powers of their own. A High Court may serve one state or more than one state or Union Territory. It hears matters within its original and appellate jurisdiction, supervises subordinate courts within the constitutional framework, and can issue writs under Article 226.

Transfer is a separate question from appointment or appeal. Article 222 provides for the President to transfer a High Court judge after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice or Supreme Court does not personally issue the constitutional transfer order. Here too, the official compilation’s footnote about the invalidated NJAC amendment matters: read the restored consultation provision, not the struck-down wording in isolation.

Here is a useful surprise: a High Court’s writ power is broader in subject matter than the Supreme Court’s Article 32 power. Article 32 concerns enforcement of fundamental rights; Article 226 covers fundamental rights and other legal purposes within its applicable jurisdiction. A lower position in the court hierarchy does not mean a smaller power in every respect.

District Court

District-level courts handle much of the everyday work of justice. Civil disputes concern matters such as property or contracts; criminal proceedings concern alleged offences. The district judiciary has civil and criminal responsibilities, with the relevant court, procedure and appeal route determined by law.

Subordinate Courts

Courts below the district level handle matters assigned to them by law. Their existence is not evidence of a separate state constitution or an entirely disconnected judicial system. Many people first encounter justice here, so vacancies, expense, access, language and delay matter as much to their experience as celebrated Supreme Court cases.

A route map in words: many ordinary cases begin in trial courts; eligible appeals move to the appropriate higher court. Some constitutional cases can begin directly in a High Court or the Supreme Court under the relevant jurisdiction. There is no compulsory journey through every rung for every case.

Explain the Various Types of Jurisdiction in Detail

Jurisdiction means a court’s legal authority to hear and decide a matter. Before asking whether an argument will succeed, ask whether this court can hear this kind of case through this route.

Original Jurisdiction

A matter within original jurisdiction can begin in that court. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over specified disputes involving the Union and states, or states against one another, where the dispute involves the existence or extent of a legal right, subject to constitutional exceptions. It does not convert every political disagreement between governments into an Article 131 case.

Writ Jurisdiction

Writs are constitutional remedies, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. Their jobs differ: for example, habeas corpus tests the legality of detention, while mandamus concerns performance of a public duty in appropriate circumstances. Article 32 provides access to the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights; Article 226 gives High Courts their wider writ power. A writ is a legal remedy, not simply a strongly worded complaint.

Appellate Jurisdiction

An appeal asks a higher court to examine a decision already made. Constitutional and statutory rules govern which decisions can be appealed and on what conditions. Articles 132–134 address important appellate routes from High Courts. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court discretionary special-leave power; it does not promise everyone another hearing. Article 136(2) excludes judgments and orders of courts or tribunals constituted under laws relating to the armed forces from that particular power.

Advisory Jurisdiction

Under Article 143(1), the President may refer a question of law or fact of sufficient public importance to the Supreme Court, which may report its opinion after a hearing. This differs from an ordinary appeal brought by a losing party. Article 143(2) deals separately with a specified category of disputes. Do not use this chapter’s simple classification to claim that every legal effect of every advisory opinion is identical.

Route detective: a person alleges unlawful detention. Must they first complete an ordinary appeal through every court?

No. A constitutional writ route can allow a direct approach to the appropriate High Court or Supreme Court, depending on the claim and applicable jurisdiction. Identify the right, the authority and the remedy rather than treating the system as one compulsory staircase. This exercise illustrates jurisdiction; it does not determine an actual person’s case.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL)

Ordinary litigation can be difficult for people who lack money, information, mobility or the ability to approach a court themselves. Public interest litigation relaxed traditional rules about who could bring certain issues before courts. A person or organisation acting in the public interest could raise a violation affecting others, rather than having to establish the same kind of personal injury as an ordinary litigant.

This opening helped bring questions concerning prisoners, workers and environmental harm before courts. But easier access is not automatic success. Courts must still consider the legal issue, evidence, affected people and appropriate relief. A public-interest label does not prove that a petition serves the public.

How does PIL become the most important part of 'Judicial Activism?

PIL became an important vehicle for judicial activism: an active judicial role in making rights effective, sometimes through flexible procedure or continuing attention to a remedy. “Most important” is a textbook discussion prompt, not a measurable ranking. Judicial activism describes an approach to the judicial role; judicial review describes examination of legal or constitutional validity. The terms overlap in some cases but are not synonyms.

The Supreme Court’s current jurisdiction page says letters can be received as public-interest petitions in appropriate circumstances. This is not a guarantee that every letter will be registered or heard, and it should not be replaced by an absolute claim that letter petitions no longer exist.

What is the negative side of PIL?

Three questions expose real tensions. Is the petitioner representing affected people fairly? Is the court receiving enough evidence to design a workable remedy? Does the order enforce a legal duty, or take over choices better made through accountable institutions with relevant expertise? Delay and misuse can also consume time needed by other litigants.

For example, a petition about an unsafe public building should take the danger seriously. Yet closing every local facility without hearing users might make access worse. A stronger approach asks what legal duty has been breached, whose experience is missing and which remedy addresses the problem without ignoring consequences. The chapter does not supply one correct policy for every such situation.

Judiciary and Rights

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review allows courts to examine laws and executive actions against constitutional requirements and to invalidate them to the extent the relevant legal grounds require. In India, a legislature’s electoral support does not make every law constitutionally valid. Article 13, the writ provisions and the Constitution’s wider structure support enforceable limits on public power.

Judicial review of a law is different from a review petition asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its own judgment under Article 137 and applicable law and rules. An appeal, a review petition and a constitutional challenge have different purposes and conditions. A court cannot simply reopen any decision at any time because someone remains dissatisfied.

Law declared by the Supreme Court binds courts throughout India under Article 141. This does not make every sentence in every judgment an eternal rule. Understanding the legal issue, reasoning and applicable precedent matters; established judicial processes can reconsider earlier positions.

Access also needs practical support. Article 39A directs the State to promote equal justice and provide free legal aid so economic or other disabilities do not deny opportunities for justice. A constitutional remedy on paper and a remedy someone can actually use are related but different achievements.

A global comparison: what can a court do to a rights-incompatible law?

In India, constitutional review can result in an invalid law being struck down. The UK Supreme Court explains a different response under the Human Rights Act: courts seek compatible interpretation where possible, and can make a declaration of incompatibility when that is not possible. They do not strike down UK Parliament’s primary legislation solely because it conflicts with rights under that Act. This narrow comparison concerns one mechanism; it does not mean the UK has no judicial review or that all kinds of legislation receive identical treatment.

Test the comparison: does “both countries have a Supreme Court” establish equal powers?

No. An institution’s name does not determine its powers. Compare the source of authority, the legal question and the available remedy. Similar labels can hide different constitutional arrangements.

Judiciary And Parliament

Parliament makes laws and can amend the Constitution through Article 368; courts interpret and enforce constitutional limits. Their relationship includes cooperation, disagreement and correction. A later law can alter the legal framework within constitutional limits, but a legislature cannot escape those limits merely by declaring a disputed action valid.

After Independence, land-reform measures sought to change unequal agrarian relationships and redistribute resources. These goals connected with the Directive Principles’ pursuit of social and economic justice. But property was then a fundamental right, so measures affecting ownership and compensation generated constitutional challenges. A socially desirable objective did not by itself answer whether a particular law complied with protected rights.

Parliament used constitutional amendments to support reform, and disputes increasingly concerned how far its amending power extended. The tension was therefore not simply “reform versus no reform”: it involved the means of pursuing redistribution, enforceable rights and the authority to alter constitutional limits. This history helps explain why the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary became a central constitutional debate.

In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court developed the basic-structure limitation: Parliament’s amending power does not permit destruction of the Constitution’s basic structure. The lesson is not that amendment is impossible. It is that even the power to change constitutional text has limits. The Supreme Court identifies judicial independence as part of that basic structure.

The history of property illustrates constitutional change. Property is no longer a fundamental right. Article 300A instead protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law. Calling it “not a right at all” would erase the remaining constitutional protection.

Source investigation: the provision that appears on the page but is not operative

Open the official Constitution dated 1 May 2024 at Article 124(2), and examine its footnotes. The printed text refers to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). Before concluding that the NJAC currently chooses judges, read the accompanying note: it records the Supreme Court’s 16 October 2015 decision striking down the relevant constitutional amendment. Now compare the Supreme Court’s appointment-process document published in May 2025, which describes collegium recommendations.

1. Make an initial prediction from the main printed line alone.
2. Find the footnote that changes your interpretation. Record the institution and date it identifies.
3. Use the later appointment guide to trace who recommends and who formally appoints.
4. Explain why “I found it in an official PDF” is not enough without reading qualifications and legal status.

Reveal the investigation’s lesson

The two documents need not contradict each other. A constitutional compilation may preserve amended text while explaining in a footnote that a court invalidated it. The appointment guide describes the working procedure. Read the provision, its notes and the relevant legal development together; publication date alone cannot settle whether every printed line operates today.

Why it still matters

Return to the library rule. An independent court is not a replacement librarian, elected council or public consultation. Its distinctive task is to hear a properly brought legal challenge, assess the relevant law and evidence, and give a reasoned decision and lawful remedy. Independence protects that task; accountability helps keep it legitimate.

Build a miniature justice system

Create a fictional equipment-loan club. Write a rule about overdue returns and choose a consequence. One player invents an awkward case: the borrower could not enter the building because the access ramp was closed. Give another player the job of deciding the dispute, separate from the person who wrote or applied the rule. Hear both sides, ask what evidence is missing and publish a three-sentence reason.

Now change the game: let the rule-maker threaten to remove the decision-maker after an unwelcome result. Then restore secure tenure but remove any obligation to explain decisions. Compare the failures. Design an appeal and a way to revise the rule. This is an analogy for discovering institutional safeguards, not a claim that a club possesses constitutional court powers.

Practice: explain the mechanism

1. Explain two safeguards of judicial independence and the pressure each reduces.

Security of tenure reduces the threat of removal over an unwelcome decision. Protected financial arrangements reduce opportunities to punish judges through routine funding or specified service-condition changes. A strong answer connects each safeguard to a pressure and notes that independence remains subject to law and accountability.

2. Distinguish original, appellate and writ jurisdiction with an example of each.

A qualifying Union–state legal-right dispute may begin in the Supreme Court under Article 131: original jurisdiction. An eligible challenge to a High Court judgment uses an appellate route. A claim seeking enforcement of a fundamental right can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or, as applicable, Article 226. Explain eligibility rather than promising that every example will be admitted or succeed.

3. Why can PIL increase access and still create accountability problems?

Relaxed standing can help issues affecting people unable to approach courts themselves reach a hearing. But a petitioner may misrepresent others, evidence may be incomplete, or a remedy may have consequences for people who were not adequately heard. Access, sound adjudication and workable relief must be considered together.

4. “A constitutional amendment is a higher form of law, so courts can never examine it.” Assess.

The conclusion does not follow. Article 368 establishes the amending power and procedure, while the basic-structure doctrine places substantive limits on that power. Distinguish an ordinary law’s constitutional validity from an amendment’s compliance with applicable procedural requirements and basic-structure limits.

Revision thread: impartial hearing → independence with accountability → integrated courts and different entry routes → rights and remedies → review of public power → constitutional limits on both legislatures and courts.

Sources

Checked on 7 September 2026 IST. The official constitutional compilation below states its own text date, 1 May 2024; later procedural evidence is identified separately.

• NCERT, Judiciary, Chapter 6 — Reprint 2026–27, printed pages 124–149; curriculum concepts and debates.
• CBSE Political Science curriculum 2026–27 — Class XI Judiciary scope.
• Legislative Department, Constitution of India, as on 1 May 2024 — Articles 13, 32, 39A, 50, 112–113, 121, 124–125, 131–143, 217, 226, 300A and 368, including relevant footnotes.
• Supreme Court: jurisdiction and constitutional role — court powers, rights, PIL and judicial independence.
• Supreme Court: process of appointments — official guide published May 2025; Chief Justice and Supreme Court judge recommendations.
• Law Ministry reply on appointments, 3 March 2016 — historical confirmation of the October 2015 restoration of the collegium system.
• Supreme Court judgment of 27 April 2020 — PDF page 46 explains the statutory protection for fair comment on finally decided cases.
• UK Supreme Court: about the Court — limited comparison of Human Rights Act remedies.

Key takeaways

• The judiciary is the system of courts that resolves legal disputes, interprets law, and administers justice.
• Independence of the judiciary protects decision-making from improper pressure by governments and other sources of influence.
• Judges must act within their jurisdiction, hear relevant arguments, and explain decisions through law and evidence.
• The Constitution provides several arrangements to ensure the independence of the judiciary, including appointment procedures, security of tenure, and constitutional provisions.
• A good court system needs independence, impartiality, and accountability to function effectively.

Test yourself

What is the main function of the judiciary?

The judiciary is the system of courts that resolves legal disputes, interprets law, and administers justice.

Why is independence of the judiciary important?

Independence of the judiciary protects decision-making from improper pressure by governments and other sources of influence.

What are the key elements of a good court system?

A good court system needs independence, impartiality, and accountability to function effectively.

How can the independence of the judiciary be provided and protected?

The Constitution provides several arrangements to ensure the independence of the judiciary, including appointment procedures, security of tenure, and constitutional provisions.

Can a judge be removed for making an unpopular judgment?

No, removal has specified grounds and a special constitutional process; disagreement with a result does not by itself establish those grounds.