Essay on Role of Judiciary in a Democracy in Very Simple Words

Here you can find Essay, Speech, Paragraph on Role of Judiciary in a Democracy in English language for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or IAS, IPS Banking and other competitive exams.

Essay on Role of Judiciary in a Democracy – 1550 Words

The theory of the separation of powers, implicit in the writings of Aristotle but first given independent expression by Harrington and Locke, is known in its modern form largely through the writings of Montesquieu. Following Montesquieu, the three powers normally consid­ered to be separable in the exercise of government are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The first formulates policy and enacts it as law, the second carries out policy in action, and the third applies the law according to rules of procedural justice and resolves disputes. The sign of the despot is to subsume these powers under one. In particular, the despot will never permit an independent judiciary, which might impede him from having his way in every dispute. In despotism nothing in the structure of power acts as a brake upon power, and hence no freedom, the hallmark of democracy, can be guaranteed. In order to limit power, the three constituents of the state must be separated as much as possible, and balanced against each other. This principle was carried into reality in the US Constitution, the first fully democratic constitution of the modern world.

Without an independent judiciary, the system may be termed ‘democratic centralism’ which is practically equiva­lent to despotism or dictatorship. In any healthy democratic state, the independence of the judiciary is sought to be maintained through certain norms in appointing judges alongwith a complicated procedure for removing them from office. Furthermore, their salaries and allowances are not changeable at the whim of the executive or the legislature. But above all, a free judiciary can only exist in a political system in which democratic principles are truly believed in and acted upon by all alike—executive, legislature and the citizenry at large. Reciprocally, the judiciary in a democracy should have the courage to protect its inde­pendence and deliver impartial judgements free of the fear of repurcussions on career and prospects.

Certainly, a balance between the three limbs of democ­racy is to be desired, but immature bickering over the respective powers should be avoided. Unfortunately in India, as David Selbourne observes, “the judiciary is at­tacked in the name of the sovereignty of the Parliament, while sovereignty of Parliament is attacked in the name of democracy and the people; also, democracy and people are being attacked in the name of ‘national discipline’ and the struggle against conspiracy and subversions.”

In a democracy, there are institutional arrangements by which courts can decide upon the constitutional validity of the laws passed by the legislature or the actions taken by the administrative and the executive authorities. Judicial review is essentially an American institution and is based on the simple logic that the constitution is supreme and confers, limited powers on the executive and the legislature and, if they overstep their limits, the judiciary must restrain them. One of the important persons instrumental in building the American state was Chief Justice John Marshal. He strengthened and consolidated the unity and democracy of the United States through a series of judicial decisions. In a bid to rescue his country from the ill-effects of the Great Depression, the then President of the US, F.D. Roosevelt (1932-36) initiated his New Deal programme. Many feared that democracy in the US was in peril. But the situation was saved, as two-thirds of the New Deal was invalidated by the Supreme Court.

It was only as democratic principles began to dis­seminate in the nineteenth century, and as democratic governments began to be set up in the twentieth century (especially after the Second World War), that the role of the judiciary came to be increasingly emphasised in the consolidation and perpetuation of the democratic institu­tions and democratic norms.

Human passion for freedom is great, but freedom has often been limited by the ruling authorities throughout history. “Men are born free, yet everywhere they are in chains” said Rousseau. However, there comes a stage when even the bare minimum of freedom needed by an individual is sought to be snatched by those in power, because this power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small group of people. In such circumstances, people’s agony and. bitterness become manifest. One such climactic situation was reached in the 1930s, when people were being crushed under the heavy hands of totalitarian governments in different parts of the world. The experiences of history convinced the people that the democratic way was the only form of decision-making to preserve man’s natural liberty and to serve his interests. However, as selfishness, greed and passion for power are inherent in human nature, it was feared that even a democratic leader may turn authoritarian and act arbitrarily at times. Therefore, sufficient checks and balances were provided. As legislature and executive are generally dominated by the same political party, sometimes they may enact and act without any regard to the people’s will and interests. In that situation, the judiciary remains the only institution to which individuals may appeal for help. And the judiciary is then expected to study any such executive enactment or action to find out whether it is anti-people or not. Once the verdict goes against such an enactment or action, the executive and legislature are expected to retrace their steps if the democratic norms have to survive.

Though every form of government has a constitution of some sort, in a democracy the constitution is more steadfastly abided by because of its paramount nature in the political set-up. The judiciary is the institution that sees that the constitution is not ignored or disgraced. Also, there are instances when a constitutional deadlock or dilemma renders the government helpless and when different inter­pretations are possible of a constitutional provision. The judiciary here steps in as the expert and the authority on the constitution to defuse the crisis. Lastly, as democracy leaves sufficient scope for different opinions and beliefs, sometimes there may surface two major and almost equally forceful opinions contradicting and conflicting with each other, holding out little chance of compromise. If the government adopts either of the .opinions, it can be called partisan. The judiciary being regarded, and respected, as independent and impartial, its verdict is generally accepted by all the parties, and the crisis is resolved.

Several instances can be cited of the leaders having been dethroned or having had to abdicate because of judicial verdicts. In Japan, Ar Nakasone aad others had to resign when they were found guilty by the court. In Bangladesh, the ex-president Mr Ershad was thrown in prison because of judicial pronouncements. The judiciary also takes over the reins of power, though rarely, in case of a political vacuum or crisis as in Pakistan after the resignation of both the president (Ishaq Khan) and the Prime Minister (Nawaz. Sharif). In India, too, the judiciary has many landmark judgements to its credit. For example, the electicn of Mrs Indira Gandhi was declared void in 1975 by the Allahabad High Court, after which she ill-advisedly imposed national emergency.

Nevertheless, the role of the judiciary is generally limited because of the balance of power tilting towards legislation in most of the democratic systems and also because of the legislature, or sometimes the executive head of the State, having power to make appointments to the judiciary. The debate on this issue has been going on for a long time and till now there has been no unanimity on the least defective procedure in such appointments.

There are problems that adversely affect judicial in­dependence in India. The politics of supersession, transfer, demotion, extension of term on monthly basis as ad hoc judges, non-confirmation of the High Court judges, among other things, are disturbing trends in a democracy. There are also examples where the judges have been threatened publicly by ministers and legislators. Again, whenever the judiciary declares any law passed by the legislature as constitutionally invalid, there has been a hue and cry in the Parliament. The court verdicts are often nullified by constitutional amendment.

All these odds before the Indian judiciary notwithstand­ing, it has served to stabilise, consolidate and protect Indian democracy by giving many important verdicts. A typical verdict was in the Keshavar. and Bharati case because in this case the Supreme Court held that the Constitution has a certain basic structure which cannot be amended. This concept of ‘basic structure’ limited the amending power of the Parliament. Again, in the Minerva Mills case, by striking down clauses 4 and 5 of Article 368, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has rightly restored the doctrine of Judicial Review which the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, had very substantially curtailed. More recently we have had striking verdicts on the anti-defection acts.

In general the judiciary is in a sense weaker than Parliament, which claims to be the representative of the people, the real sovereign in a democracy. However, it plays an important role in the survival and strengthenin ct g of the people’s resolve to rule themselves and to prote the interests and liberty. It is true that the judiciary has to depend on the executive for the implementation of its decisions but it does not mean that the executive or even those sitting in the legislature can ignore such decisions. After all, in a democracy the members of the legislature and the executive have to go periodically to the people (at the hustings) who have high respect for the judiciary in spite of occasional aberrations. And as Justice Venkatachalliah opined, unless we have respect in the judiciary, democracy cannot survive.


Essay on Role of Judiciary in a Democracy – 1000 Words

In a liberal democratic state, the judiciary has four main responsibilities including formulating the rule of law to respond with a verdict and responding with a verdict, settling disputes, conducting legal investigations, and being a player in state politics. Is included. To fulfill these four duties, the basic principles of a liberal democratic state must be upheld with the principles of a legal democracy and state. The judiciary has to interpret and enforce the Constitution as well as the law, and provide unbiased advertising of disputes between the state and individuals, between individuals, and between different levels of government within the state.

Relying on the courts and judicial means to address core ethical dilemmas, political disputes, and public policy questions is arguably one of the most consequential events of the late twentieth century and early twentieth century. Equipped with the new judicial review, the National High Courts around the world have often been asked to resolve a number of issues that differ from the scope of the right to equality of freedom of expression and religious freedom, reproduction and privacy, criminal justice, education related For public policies. Labor and Environmental Protection. The increasing political significance of the courts has not only become more widespread than ever before on a global scale, but has also increased the scope of becoming a much more elaborate, multilateral phenomenon, beyond the ‘normative’ concept of judge-made policy-making.

The basic law of the Irish state is the constitution of Ireland which was adopted in 1937 by a referendum replacing the constitution of the Independent State of Ireland (1922). The Constitution is the umbrella under which the judicial system and the courts established by law have applicable legal rights. The constitution segregates powers between state, executive, legislative and judicial organs. It guarantees judicial protection of fundamental rights and due process in administrative and judicial areas. It can be enforced by individuals, who can challenge the constitutionality of the laws passed by the Oirechetas and seek redress for violations of constitutional rights. The legal system under the Constitution is based on common law tradition.

The role of the judiciary in the community is manifest not only among the judges, but also in the way that they do so. This is called judicial style. There is a clear distinction between the style of judges in civil law courts and the style of judges in common law traditions. In recent times there has been an emphasis on satisfactory accountability of all institutions within the government, which need to be harmonized with the principles of independence, to be addressed and accepted. A lot of public money is invested in the courts, and people are entitled to expect that individual judges work efficiently, as well as impartially distribute their decisions relatively quickly and to consider cases Will manage in relation of the economy.

To achieve the characteristics of the judiciary, developed democracies have relied on the “culture of the judiciary”. When judges enter office, they take an oath to uphold the rights and constitution, self integrity, peer pressure and public scrutiny of all citizens, at least at the highest level, to obey their oath. By setting these standards for promotion, they can help maintain equal behavior at their future peers and lower levels. The duty of fairness and the principles of natural justice have been focused on the critical issue by the courts through judicial review as to whether, under all circumstances, the procedure followed in a particular case was fair. Transparency and open process of decision making through judicial review is one of the safeguards in achieving an acceptable balance between the security of the country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to successfully tackle this challenge. Judges will continue to rely on the insights and knowledge of the legal community. Although input from a wide variety of subjects is also required. Communities and public servants, academics, social scientists, and policy makers can help the judiciary to gain a more complete perspective. There is a need to strive for complex and complex balances that will promote the development and development of rational and sound principles under the new law. The legislature also needs to recognize that it cannot affect the functioning of the court and the selection of its personnel because it is a party to many disputes between citizens and their representatives that the judiciary has to resolve. For example, the Legislature would have to accept that its purpose is to represent citizens and operate within structures based on the rules defined by the Constitution. Representation does not mean unwanted power. The judiciary protects the citizens their elected representatives in the legislature must elect to perform acts that violate one’s constitutional rights in society. The involvement of other branches of government in the functioning of the court should be as limited as possible. In instances where any rule is considered an unsuitable constitution, it also delineates the process of amending the constitution.

The role of the judiciary in policy making or implementation is a subject that has well-connected associations beyond judicial review of administrative decisions. When policymaking is considered as part of judicial work, it is important that it makes sense of what is being said, and how judicial law relates, judicial role and judicial capacity. While there is an evolution in common law, there is accountability for such developments by judges for proposed changes to the Constitution and laws, as a response to changing needs as well as appropriate pressure for reasonableness. They accomplish this within the instinct of their own discipline.

Another case worth weighing may change the legal profession and others’ attitudes toward the use of litigation as a technique to achieve political and social objectives. We have long been accustomed to the use of litigation as a weapon in corporate and commercial rivalry, but we can be described as a politically and socially aggressive use of litigation. This has also changed the character of the actions facing some courts, and the courts have a significant impact on the way the public behaves.

As a democratic society, we have seen significant changes in the relationship between individuals and the state. The judiciary has the knowledge and experience to make a tremendous contribution to the maintenance and continuous development of our democratic society. The role of the courts is the need for interpreters of law and defenders of the constitution, as disputes in disputes, they must be completely different in authority and function from all other participants in the justice system.

Leave a Comment