Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna on Tuesday stressed on the independence of judiciary, stating that an independent judiciary ensured that justice was delivered in an unbiased manner, without affection or ill-will, free from by external pressures, and guided solely by the Constitution & the law.
Speaking during the celebrations of the 75th Constitution Day in the Supreme Court, the CJI said that an independent judiciary was like a bridge that connected different branches of the government through interdependence, autonomy and reciprocity.
Although the administration of justice was the firmest pillar of governance, it did not mean that each branch of the government was a satellite working in an independent orbit. Rather, all of them were related actors that worked in a degree of separateness. Each branch must honour its constitutionally assigned distinct role, while nurturing inter-institutional equilibrium, he added.
The CJI said that after independence, India started it’s journey as a unique democratic experiment, the most ambitious of its kind. Not only has the country been successful, but it came to the realisation that achieving democratic ideals was a continuous journey of collective aspiration.
Taking a dig at the criticism over the selection process of judges, the CJI said that people questioned as to how could an unelected Judiciary justify its significant power in a democracy?
Imagine a world where judges campaigned for votes, solicited views & decisions from public, and make promises about future judgments.
Terming the Constitution a living and breathing document, the CJI said that the citizens of the country considered it as a way of their lives. They had pledged to honour, uphold and protect the Constitution as its trustees and custodians. The Constitution bestowed upon the Constitutional Courts the power of judicial review, which enabled its stakeholders to strike down amendments to the Constitution, plenary legislation, executive policy, and administrative & quasi-judicial decisions, he added.
The CJI said that the judges had the power to entertain Public Interest Litigations, initiate cases suo motu, and appoint amicus curiae to aid decision-making. District Courts – the first point of contact for most citizens – adjudicated disputes and enforced fundamental, as well as other rights available in law.
The role of a judge was like walking on a razor’s edge. Each case required balancing between competing rights and obligations with fairness, empathy and precision. Every verdict passed by a judge was a zero-sum game, it inevitably created winners and losers, inviting celebration from some and criticism from others. It was this duality that invited scrutiny into the functioning of the courts, he added.
Some people saw the Constitutional Courts of India as among the most powerful in the world, while others looked at judges as people who strayed from their constitutional duties by failing to challenge the status quo and also resisted the transient popular mandate of the electorate.
As judges, perspectives and critique mattered, because the foremost duty of a judge was towards the public. Besides, being open and transparent was the biggest strength of the judiciary. As adjudicators, the judges eschewed any sense of being beyond reproach. Being responsive to constructive feedback made the courts become more efficient, citizen and public centric, and accountable. By opening themselves to scrutiny, the judges were able to identify systemic inefficiencies & bottlenecks, and work towards eliminating them.