Judiciary

Overview

The Judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and the third pillar of Indian democracy. It interprets laws, settles disputes, and protects fundamental rights through an independent, integrated judicial system. For UPSC Prelims, this topic carries significant weight — expect 3-5 questions annually covering constitutional provisions (Articles 124-147 for Supreme Court, 214-231 for High Courts), landmark judgments, and recent judicial developments.

Students must master the structure and jurisdiction of courts, the doctrine of judicial review, the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the expanding role of tribunals. Questions often test fine distinctions — original vs appellate jurisdiction, writs jurisdiction of SC vs HC, and the difference between judicial activism and overreach.

Key Concepts

• **Integrated Judicial System**: Unlike the USA's dual system, India has a single hierarchy — Supreme Court at apex, High Courts at state level, and subordinate courts below. All courts apply both central and state laws.

• **Independence of Judiciary**: Secured through security of tenure, fixed service conditions, ban on practice after retirement (for SC judges), expenses charged on Consolidated Fund, and the collegium system of appointments.

• **Judicial Review**: Power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. Derived from Articles 13, 32, 131-136, and 226. It is part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

• **Original Jurisdiction of SC**: Exclusive in Centre-State and inter-State disputes (Article 131). Shared with HCs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Article 32).

• **Appellate Jurisdiction of SC**: Constitutional matters (Article 132), civil matters (Article 133), criminal matters (Article 134), and by special leave (Article 136 — widest discretionary power).

• **PIL (Public Interest Litigation)**: Relaxation of locus standi allowing any public-spirited person to approach courts on behalf of disadvantaged groups. Pioneered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer in the late 1970s.

• **Tribunals**: Quasi-judicial bodies under Article 323A (administrative tribunals like CAT) and Article 323B (other matters like tax, labour). They reduce burden on regular courts but their orders are subject to judicial review by High Courts.

• **Judicial Activism vs Overreach**: Activism means proactive interpretation to protect rights (e.g., Vishaka guidelines). Overreach occurs when judiciary encroaches on legislative/executive domain, disturbing separation of powers.

Key Facts

| Aspect | Supreme Court | High Court | |--------|---------------|------------| | Constitutional Articles | 124-147 | 214-231 | | Judges | CJI + 33 (current sanctioned: 34) | Varies by state | | Appointment | President on collegium recommendation | President; Governor consulted | | Retirement Age | 65 years | 62 years | | Removal | Impeachment (proved misbehaviour/incapacity; 2/3rd majority in each House) | Same process | | Writ Jurisdiction | Article 32 (only for FRs) | Article 226 (FRs + other legal rights) |

**Important Writs** (Both SC and HC can issue):

• Habeas Corpus — against illegal detention
• Mandamus — directing public duty performance
• Certiorari — quashing inferior court orders
• Prohibition — preventing inferior courts from exceeding jurisdiction
• Quo Warranto — questioning authority to hold public office

**Landmark Cases**:

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Basic structure doctrine
• Maneka Gandhi (1978): Expanded Article 21; due process reading
• S.P. Gupta (1981): PIL formally recognized; "judges' transfer case"
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Guidelines on sexual harassment
• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): Judicial review over tribunal decisions cannot be excluded
• NJAC Case (2015): Struck down 99th Amendment; collegium system restored

**Tribunals**:

• CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) — service matters of central government employees
• SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal) — appeals against SEBI orders
• NGT (National Green Tribunal) — environmental disputes
• NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) — company law matters
• Armed Forces Tribunal — service matters of armed forces personnel

Worked Examples

**Example 1**: A citizen's fundamental right under Article 19 is violated by a state law. Which courts can she approach?

*Solution*: She can approach either the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the concerned High Court under Article 226. Both have concurrent original jurisdiction for FR enforcement. However, Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right (called "heart and soul of Constitution" by Ambedkar), so SC cannot refuse to entertain if FRs are involved.

**Example 2**: Parliament passes a law excluding judicial review of decisions by a newly created tribunal. Is this constitutional?

*Solution*: No. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the SC held that judicial review by High Courts (Article 226/227) and Supreme Court (Article 32) over tribunal decisions is part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot exclude it completely. Tribunals can be the first forum, but not the final one.

**Example 3**: The government argues that PIL filed by an NGO should be dismissed because the NGO is not directly affected.

*Solution*: This argument will fail. PIL relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi. Any public-spirited person or organization can file PIL on behalf of those who cannot approach courts due to poverty, ignorance, or social disadvantage. Courts examine whether there is genuine public interest, not personal grievance disguised as PIL.

Common Mistakes

• **Confusing Article 32 and 226**: Article 32 is available only for Fundamental Rights and only in SC. Article 226 is wider — HCs can issue writs for FRs AND any other legal right. → Remember: "226 is wider in scope, 32 is itself a Fundamental Right."

• **Thinking tribunals replace courts entirely**: Tribunals supplement, not supplant. Their decisions are subject to HC review under Articles 226/227. → Fix: Tribunals are subordinate to constitutional courts in judicial hierarchy.

• **Believing judges are appointed solely by the executive**: The collegium (CJI + 4 senior judges for SC; CJI + 2 senior judges for HC) recommends names. President formally appoints but cannot unilaterally choose. → This was reinforced in NJAC case (2015).

• **Mixing up advisory jurisdiction**: Only SC has advisory jurisdiction (Article 143) — President can seek opinion on questions of law/fact. HCs have no such power. → Many confuse this with reference jurisdiction.

• **Treating judicial activism as always negative**: Judicial activism has given Vishaka guidelines, environmental protection, right to privacy. It becomes overreach only when judiciary makes policy or assumes administrative functions. → Distinguish between gap-filling and power-grabbing.

Quick Reference

• SC: Articles 124-147; HC: Articles 214-231; Subordinate Courts: Articles 233-237
• Judicial review = basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
• PIL pioneers: Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer; locus standi relaxed
• Five writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto
• Collegium system upheld in NJAC case (2015); 99th Amendment struck down
• Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right; cannot be suspended even during Emergency (44th Amendment)
• Tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B; subject to HC judicial review (L. Chandra Kumar)