Legislature, executive, and judiciary are the three organs of government- 8th class civics. The judiciary, as a cornerstone of democracy, is expected to function independently, free from political influence. However, the reality often presents a more complex picture. Judges, both in the Supreme Court and High Courts, have occasionally been embroiled in political controversies that raise questions about their impartiality and the influence of political affiliations on their decisions.
The issue of judges transitioning into politics post-retirement has long been a point of contention. Former CJI Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha shortly after his retirement, and Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, recently resigned from the Calcutta High Court to join the BJP. Such moves have raised questions about the potential for quid pro quo arrangements and the erosion of public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.
The appointment of judges in India has also been historically contentious- the collegium system, where judges appoint judges, was established to ensure judicial independence. However, it has faced criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability. Instances where the government has selectively approved or delayed judicial appointments recommended by the collegium have further fueled concerns about political interference. Several high-profile cases have highlighted the potential for political influence within the judiciary. The appointment of Justice L. Victoria Gowri, once a BJP member, to the Madras High Court, was challenged on the grounds of her alleged hate speech. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court upheld her appointment, emphasizing that political affiliations alone should not disqualify a candidate from judicial office.
While some argue that judges, like any other citizens, are entitled to their political beliefs, others contend that overt political affiliations can undermine the perceived impartiality of the judiciary. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emphasize the need for judges to maintain independence, impartiality, and integrity, both in and out of court. Efforts to address these concerns have included calls for a cooling-off period for judges before they can enter politics, as well as proposals for a National Judicial Appointments Commission to oversee judicial appointments. However, these suggestions have met with mixed reactions.
Jargon
- Collegium System: A system in India where judges appoint judges, aimed at ensuring judicial independence by minimizing executive influence. It involves the Chief Justice of India and senior judges of the Supreme Court.
- Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from external pressures, particularly from the executive and legislative branches, to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice.
- Cooling-off Period: A proposed period during which judges or bureaucrats are restricted from taking up political or private sector roles immediately after retirement to prevent conflicts of interest.
- Quid Pro Quo: A favor or advantage granted in return for something.
- National Judicial Appointments Commission: A proposed body to oversee the appointment of judges with representation from the executive
Viewpoints 💭
- Emphasizes the importance of maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, free from political affiliations or biases.
- Advocates for stringent measures to ensure transparency and accountability in judicial appointments, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional values and democracy.
- Opposes the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission to oversee judicial appointments, fearing political interference.
- Calls for increased representation of women, SC, ST, OBC, and minorities in the judiciary to reflect the diversity of the society and enhance the judiciary’s credibility.
- Questions the necessity and effectiveness of a National Judicial Appointments Commission, arguing that the current collegium system, despite its flaws, ensures a level of independence and autonomy in judicial appointments.
- There is a clear ideological divide on the proposal of a cooling-off period for judges before entering politics, with the left supporting it to maintain judicial independence and the right opposing it as restrictive and unnecessary.
- While the right calls for the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission to liberate the opaque judicial appointments, the left maintains that the existing system, including the collegium and executive collaboration, does not inherently compromise the judiciary’s independence.
- The right emphasizes the need to address the pendency of cases and to safeguard democracy by preventing the collegium system’s misuse. The left, however, focuses on the judiciary’s capacity to manage its caseload and maintain its autonomy without external interference.
- Overall, the ideological differences reflect contrasting views on how to best ensure judicial independence, transparency in appointments, and the judiciary’s role in a democratic society, highlighting the complexity of balancing individual rights, political affiliations, and the need for a fair and impartial judiciary.
- Supports the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission to oversee judicial appointments, ensuring a fair and merit-based selection process.
- Argues that the political affiliations of judges prior to their appointment do not necessarily impact their judicial work.
- Highlights instances where judges with political backgrounds have made significant contributions to the judiciary, enhancing its diversity and richness.
- Opposes the imposition of a cooling-off period for judges before joining politics, arguing that it restricts individuals’ rights and is not supported by existing legal frameworks.
- Emphasizes the collaboration between the judiciary and executive in the appointment process, arguing that it does not compromise judicial independence.
Prominent Voices 📣
- Alok Prasanna Kumar (Lawyer): Criticized judges taking political roles right after retirement. [1]
- Kamini Jaiswal (Secretary, Committee for Judicial Accountability and Reforms): Argued that joining politics casts doubts on a judge’s previous rulings. [1]
- Prashant Bhushan (Senior Lawyer): Condemned Union Minister for Earth Sciences Rijiju’s fitness to judge and his threats towards the judiciary. [2] [3]
- Sanjay Hegde (Eminent Lawyer): Called for a cooling-off period for judges to preserve their impartiality. [4] [1]
- Saurabh Bhardwaj (AAP Leader): Demanded an apology from Mr Rijiju for calling Supreme Court judges anti-India. [3]
- Ravi Shankar Prasad (Law Minister): Reiterated that the government does not intend to interfere with the judiciary’s independence. [5]
- Jagdeep Dhankhar (Vice President): Labeled dissenting voices as ‘anti-national’ for voicing concerns about judicial independence. [6]
- Suvendu Adhikari (Leader of Opposition, West Bengal): Emphasised on the requirement of people like the retired justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in West Bengal’s contemporary political scenario. [7]
- Amit Shah (Union Home Minister): Gave Retd. Justice Gangopadhyay his blessings on joining the BJP. [7]
Sources 📚
