Judiciary Importance and Functions PDF

Preview

Summary

Judiciary: Importance and FunctionsThe legislature and the executive are the first two branches of government; the judiciary is the third. People's constitutional rights are protected by the Indian Constitution's guardian and protector, the Supreme Court. Most countries around the world rely on a fo...

Description

Judiciary: Importance and Functions The legislature and the executive are the first two branches of government; the judiciary is the third. People's constitutional rights are protected by the Indian Constitution's guardian and protector, the Supreme Court. Most countries around the world rely on a formal and hierarchical legal system to protect citizens' rights and define their responsibilities. Civil codes and precedents in court verdicts serve as the foundation for the development of legal principles and legislation. The courts handle a wide range of issues, including civil, criminal, economic, political, and social. Disagreements can arise between states and the federal government, or within a federal structure, between the states. On the basis of its constitution, India is sovereign. In our Preamble, we reaffirmed our commitment to social, economic, and political equality, liberty, and opportunity for all. The Indian Constitution's founding fathers put the judiciary at the top of the list. The Indian Constitution's Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy chapter embodies this same guiding spirit. It is the judiciary's duty to uphold the United Nations' criterion for good governance, the rule of law, which is the judiciary's mandate. In order for human rights to be fully realised, an enabling environment must be in place that encourages growth and sustainable human development. There were 17 Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations in 2015 which came into effect in 2016 and are referred to as Agenda 2030. India vowed to work toward achieving the goals of sustainable growth. It's all about "Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions" in SDG 16. According to the document, "promote a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development; ensure that everyone has access to justice; and build institutions that are effective, accountable, and inclusive at all levels." The judiciary must be active, equitable, and effective in order to meet the objectives. judicial system in India Understanding the Indian judicial system's structure is essential before

delving into its significance. "Law, individual merit, and secular education" were the goals of the Indian Constitution's framers after the country's independence. Indian jurisprudence is organised in a pyramidal structure with the Supreme Court at its summit. High Courts and District Courts make up the second and third tiers, respectively. Following is an explanation of the judiciary's function: Justice for All: The judiciary's primary role is to provide justice to those who seek it and to render decisions based on the testimony, evidence, and proofs of those who seek it. Sub-clauses in Article 311 deal with restrictions on trade and business, including the right to a hearing as an essential principle of natural justice. India's constitution is based on Articles 14 and 21 as well. Natural justice is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is a principle that runs throughout the document. The judiciary is responsible for ensuring that everyone is treated equally before the law. The rule of law and the principle of "justice for all" can only be achieved if all citizens have equal access to the courts. In other words, it means having the option of a cost-effective settlement from a credible forum. While the verdict is announced, the courts decide on punishment and compensation. The Indian Constitution is the world's longest-written Constitution, making it a challenge to interpret it. Judiciary judges are charged with applying the law to cases in order to resolve disputes and conflicts. However, it is the judiciary's interpretation of the written words in the Indian Constitution that serves as the judiciary's legislative role, even though it cannot make the laws. As a legitimate exercise of government power, the laws are generally drafted with the future in mind. According to some critics, the judiciary's role as "legislator" rather than "interpreter" of laws is implied because, in many cases, judges give the verdict as an inference when there is no applicable law, or the judiciary has issued administrative directives to government departments. Case law is a term used to refer to the precedents established by the courts in

the interpretation of the law. Courts of Records ensure that the decisions of the higher courts are followed by the lower courts. To be a court of record, the Supreme Court must be able to publish its own contempt citations, among other things. Those records that are admitted by a court of record, according to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, should be admissible as evidence and should not be questioned in any court. Articles 129 and 215 both refer to a court of record, though not in the exact same way. This is well-known in the judicial world. As a result, court rulings are a source of law. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the Constitution establishes a separation of powers among the three branches of government, and as a result, no one branch should routinely infringe on the authority of another. Legislative bodies enact laws, while the judiciary interprets those laws, with the latter having the power to do so in exceptional circumstances. To put it plainly: Judiciary is the only one that can define the boundaries of the three other branches of government, according to a bench of Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice MarkandeyKatju. As a result, the judiciary must use this authority with great care and restraint. The Indian Constitution provides for a wide range of judicial review powers in India because it is the guardian of the Constitution. For example, a law can be declared unconstitutional or ultra vires (beyond legislative competence) if it conflicts with any part of the Constitution that deals with the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, as stated inArticle 13 of Indian law. Here are the three main aspects of judicial review: legislators; a legislative act a court ruling; and This is an administrative action. This means that judges of the Supreme Court must interpret the law in a way that does not compromise the Constitution's values. As a result of historical misunderstandings, the significance of judicial review has grown even more pressing in recent years, inspiring an increase in judicial activism (dealt later

in this unit). Legal restraints are placed on the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government by the judicial review doctrine. A violation of India's constitution is attempted if the basic structure is damaged in any way. As a result, the Supreme Court has the authority to review legislation passed by both the Parliament and the State legislatures. Judiciary review is sometimes conflated with judicial control, but the latter encompasses all forms of judicial action that a citizen can take to challenge the authority's oppressive actions. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the citizens' rights, regardless of whether they are economic, social, or political. Second-generation rights include those related to social welfare (after new nations were formed after the Second World War). All people in society are entitled to equal access to social opportunities for the development of their personality, without regard to caste, sex, race or religion. Following a request for judicial approval, the courts in India use the concept of continuing mandamus to identify public interest issues and devise an action plan with government officials. As a result of several court orders, an authority is given relief from performing its duties or meeting an obligation that serves the public interest. In the event that they need to change their plans due to the court's intervention, they will. The judiciary's primary role is to protect the rights of both individuals and the country. In India's federal structure, the judiciary plays a key role in resolving disputes between the Union and the States. The judiciary has recently played an important role in making India an arbitration-friendly state. Because of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, it accepts arbitration even if there are some minor errors. If the parties involved in a dispute are willing to settle their differences through arbitration, it can save both parties time and money. Judges are often called upon to serve on various legislatively-instituted commissions that are tasked with investigating a variety of crimes, from riots to other more complex issues. The aforementioned points highlight the judiciary's role, but it would be

incomplete without a look at the relatively new phenomenon of judicial activism. Activism in the Courts Before interpreting the law, the Supreme Court was technocratic in nature. In judicial review, the court assumed the responsibility. The judiciary must become more active in the face of increasingly difficult times of governance, and this is where judicial activism comes in. When the judiciary gets involved in legislative and executive affairs, it is said to be engaging in judicial activism. It's a way to help those who have been harmed or disadvantaged. A number of factors, including a lack of action by the executive and judiciary, ineffective public service delivery and violations of human rights, have led to an increase in recent years. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger's leadership in judicial activism helped it gain traction. Author P.N. Bhagwati. The judiciary in India has ensured immediate access to justice, relief for those who have been wronged, fair standards of procedure, and so on in numerous cases involving child labour, human rights violations, environmental issues, traffic regulation, and the care of the elderly. During the recent covid-19 pandemic, we saw how the judiciary stepped in to help manage the situation. An example of judicial activism is when a decision is made based on personal or political considerations rather than on the existing rules of law. Judicial restraint may be used as an antonym for it. Constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and the separation of powers are all addressed in this book. It could also be about overturning laws as unconstitutional; overturning judicial precedent or rulings against the preferred interpretation of the constitution. As a counterweight to the effects of temporary majoritarianism, it implies that the judiciary gets stronger with activism. There must be no room for the majority to oppress and exploit the rights of the minority.

A judge's activism can be both beneficial and detrimental. It is a good thing if it tries to improve power relations among different groups of people. When it is conservative and tries to maintain the status quo, it is considered a negative. Due to the challenges of increasing polity complexity and plurality, the judiciary has evolved from a positivist to an activist role in the last few decades. Indian courts have a system of public interest litigation (Pil), which was established in 1976 to ensure justice for people from the most marginalised sections of society, to keep an eye on legislative and executive activities. During the 1980s, the judiciary began the process of becoming a fully autonomous institution of rule. An action in public interest, such as health, education, pollution, road safety, or the environment, is brought before a court through a PIL. Using the PIL, the Supreme Court can examine issues that aren't typically addressed by the legal system, such as those that directly affect the poor and those who don't have access to other avenues for redress. People can use the PIL as a tool to bring a writ to court, thereby establishing and enforcing their legal rights in the process. Democracy is bolstered because it provides citizens with a means of defending their interests. Public interest litigation, as the name implies, deals with issues such as pollution, construction-related risks and hazards, terrorism, and other such concerns. PIL cases have become increasingly popular as a means of ensuring that statutory and constitutional requirements are being met. When it comes to making public interest litigation (PIL) more accessible, Justices P.N. Bhagawati and Krishna Iyer have been pioneers. Of course, the judiciary can be made aware of insignificant matters on occasion thanks to this tool. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, one can file a writ petition in the High Court or the Supreme Court if an individual's fundamental rights have been violated.

In other words, a writ petition is an order from the highest court to lower courts telling them what to do or not to do. Five types of writs are outlined in the Constitution of India: People who are being held illegally can petition the court for the release of their bodies, which is known as Habeas Corpus. If you want the body, you can get it through Habeas Corpus. A complaint can be made if a prisoner's fundamental rights have been violated. Detained persons can be ordered to appear before the court in order to determine if they have been unlawfully detained and be released. If the detainee is unable to file the writ petition on his/her own, a family member or a friend can do so on his/her behalf. Higher courts can order lower courts, tribunals and forums to act on their behalf by using the term'mandamus'. An injunction is issued by the highest court to prevent lower courts from acting outside of their jurisdiction or usurping any authority not granted to them by the Supreme Court or High Court. If the Supreme Court decides that it is the superior court, it can issue writs of certiorari (to be certified) to lower courts so that they can transfer any matter to it for review to determine whether or not a proceeding is legal. It is possible to stop someone from acting as a public official in the absence of entitlement by issuing a Quo-Warranto (by whose authority). If the judiciary determines that a law is unfit, it has the authority to invalidate it under the Constitution. This is why the Indian Constitution has been referred to as organic. Constituents' needs and changing socioeconomic dynamics are taken into consideration by constitutional amendments. In addition, the amendments must not destabilise the Constitution's fundamental rights structure. In India, judicial activism, in which judges deviate from precedent in favour of new social policies, has grown in popularity in the last decade. But when the judiciary crosses the line into interfering with other branches of government, this is judicial overreach. In order to avoid losing the legitimacy of the instrument of judicial activism,

PIL must not turn into a Political/Personal/Publicity Interest litigation (PPI)....