An Independent Judiciary in a Democracy
The three limbs of democracy are the legislature, the executive, and therefore the judiciary. The primary formulates policy and enacts it as law, the second carries out policy in action and therefore the third applies the law consistent with rules of procedural justice and resolves disputes. To ensure freedom, the hallmark of democracy, these three powers must be separated the maximum amount possible and balanced against one another.
For successful democracy, the existence of a free judiciary may be a must. Without an independent judiciary, the system could also be practically like a dictatorship. Judiciary is the guardian of the constitution which is rooted within the rule of law. The judiciary is the interpreter of the constitution.
Parliament and therefore the state legislature are creatures of the constitution and the judiciary features a duty to correct their errors if sometimes they cross the bounds of their powers as defined within the constitution. Man’s passion for freedom is great but this passion has often been limited by the ruling authorities. Sometimes even the bare minimum of freedom needed isn’t granted by those in power, because this power is concentrated within the hands of one individual or a little group of individuals.
As legislatures and executives are generally dominated by an equivalent party. they also enact and act with no reference to the people’s will and interests. During this situation the judiciary remains the sole institution to which individuals may appeal for help and once the decision goes against such an enactment. The executives and legislatures are expected to retrace their steps if the democratic norms need to survive.
The role of the judiciary began to be increasingly emphasized only the democratic principles began to disseminate within the nineteenth century and as democratic governments began to be found out within the twentieth century. Today there’s widespread support and enthusiasm for the assertive posture adopted by the courts. it’s because during a democracy the constitution is more steadfastly abided by due to its paramount nature within the political set-up.
The judiciary sees that the constitution isn’t isolated and disgraced. Also hence, a constitutional deadlock renders the govt helpless, the judiciary is the only institution left because of the authority on the constitution to defuse the crises. Lastly, as democracy leaves sufficient scope for various opinions and beliefs, sometimes there arise two almost equal forceful opinions, contradiction, and conflict with one another, holding out little chance of compromise. At this point, the judiciary is regarded and revered as independent and impartial, the judicial verdict is usually accepted by all and therefore the crises are resolved.
However, the role of the judiciary is usually limited due to the balance of power tilting towards legislation in most of the democratic system. The legislature and therefore the executive combine to demoralize the judiciary on the one hand and make it committed to the others. Also, there’s a neighborhood of individuals who are engaged over the aggressive developments brought into focus by the judiciary, the new judicial crusade against corruption in high places has sent shock waves everywhere in the country and lots of legislatures are expressing alarm in what they perceive as broad interpretation.
But actually, this could not be considered a broad interpretation. In fact, there are corrective measures taken by the judiciary. The constitution itself has given the judiciary overriding powers. The Indian judiciary has upheld great values enshrined within the Indian constitution. the requirements of the hour are restraint and conformity to the letter and spirit of the constitution both by the judiciary and politicians.
A free judiciary can only exist during a form of government during which democratic principles are truly believed in and acted upon by all alike. In return, the judiciary during a democracy should have the courage to guard its independence and deliver impartial judgments without worrying about repercussions on career and prospects.
Secularism in India According to Encyclopedia Britannica secularism is “nonspiritual, having no concern with religions or spiritual matters.” There are three main schools of thought Western, Indian and Communist. The Western concept of secularism was intended to separate church from state. The state does not follow a particular religion. Church will not interfere in the […]