Justification For Judicial Accountability

  Justification For Judicial Accountability :

 One of the distinctive features of our constitution is that while the legislative and the executive control suspense or review the decisions of the court. But, the higher courts / Constitutional Courts can review the decision of the executive and test the legality or constitutional validity of the laws passed by the legislature.

 The higher courts while exercising the powers of judicial review have been conferred with powers to uphold constitution and to ensure the other organs of the states function within the limits, prescribed for them under the constitution.

  The Supreme Court held in the Minerva Mills Case , that our constitution is founded on a nice balance of power amongest the three organs of the state that is, The Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. It is the function of the court to pronounce upon the validity of laws. A controlled constitution will become uncontrolled.

Despite a big question as to whether Judicial Independence exists or not, the much adopted Independence is being used for all types of personal protection of the Judges. Overall Judiciary is sensitive to interference of the government even in the appointment and disciplinary matters of Judges and not when it comes down to Independence in the justice delivery process. In matters of discipline no sections of society including the Judges, can be immune to law.

  The Judiciary presumes that it is in such a way independence that is not accountable to society; it raised it and also maintaining it. Autonomous working of the Right and privilege of every Public Department and it is a basic procedural property against external interferences. But this property can’t be stretched to a point of being out law.

  The Judicial Independence (of Judges) it constitutes a self respecting class of the society who will never disclose the assets nor will tolerate any non-judicial member in the National Judicial Commission.

  Despite the fact that the concept of Independent Commissions is invariably held by the some Judiciary, to be a basic requirement to meet the spirits of enquiry. It only means that the proposed National Judicial Commission will be practically, somebody which is Supreme Collegiums of the day.

  The Supreme Court raises that provision of Sec 25 of Right to Information Act and sought exemption from it. For any information which in the opinion of Chief Justice of India or its nominee may adversely affect or interfere or tends to interfere with the independence of Judiciary or administration of Justice.

  Supreme Court proposed an amendment exempting the Chief Justice of India decisions on Right to Information applications. From being subjected to appeal before the Central Information Commission.

  It has been as regular attempt of the Supreme Court that any information sought by public concerning the Judges or the Judiciary they are protecting that if such information is made known to the public. It will adversely affect the Judicial Independence and the working of the Judiciary as a whole.

   They are using Judicial Independence as a guide to protect themselves and to cover their weakness. The concept of Judicial Independence must be strictly confined to the freedom of Judges to decide.

   The cases, to administer the Justice, ensuring free and far Justice Delivery process, except that the Judges their appointment, conduct, behaviour and all other matters should be brought under scrutiny, supervision; and control like that of any other  Public Servant. 


Post a Comment