👉 Evolution of Judiciary in India: Historical Development & Key Milestones

The Evolution of the Judiciary in India: A Historical Overview

The Indian judiciary, a cornerstone of its democratic framework, boasts a rich and complex history, evolving from ancient indigenous systems to a sophisticated modern legal structure. This journey reflects India's diverse cultural heritage, periods of foreign rule, and its eventual emergence as a sovereign republic. Understanding this evolution is crucial for UPSC aspirants, State PCS candidates, law students, and researchers to grasp the foundational principles and contemporary challenges of Indian Polity.

1. Introduction

The judiciary in India serves as the guardian of the Constitution, interpreter of laws, and protector of fundamental rights. Its evolution is not merely a chronological account of court establishments but a narrative of changing legal philosophies, administrative structures, and the struggle for justice. From the Dharma-centric legal system of ancient India to the common law principles introduced by the British, culminating in an independent and integrated judiciary post-independence, this journey has shaped the rule of law in the country. The present Indian legal system is a mixed legal system, primarily based on common law, with civil laws applicable in certain territories, combined with religion-specific personal laws.

2. Historical and Constitutional Background

The evolution of the Indian judiciary can be broadly categorized into four phases: Ancient, Medieval, British, and Post-Independence.

2.1. Ancient Period: Dharma and Justice

In ancient India, the concept of 'Dharma' profoundly influenced the administration of justice. Dharma, signifying righteousness and cosmic order, served as the guiding principle for legal ideas and regulations.

• Sources of Law: The Vedas, Upanishads, Dharma Sutras, Manusmriti, and Kautilya's Arthashastra were primary sources of legal thought, outlining rules of conduct and procedures for resolving disputes.
• Village Panchayats: At the grassroots level, village panchayats (councils of five elected men) played a significant role in resolving minor disputes, both civil and criminal, following customary law. Their decisions were often unanimous.
• King's Court: The King was considered the ultimate source of justice, though bound by Dharma and advised by learned scholars (Dharmadhyaksha). There was a hierarchy of courts, from family arbitrators to judges, the Chief Justice (Praadivivaka or adhyaksha), and finally, the King's Court.
• Mauryan Empire: Chandragupta Maurya established a systematic judicial system with Dharma Mahamatyas resolving conflicts using Dharma Shastras.
• Clear Distinction: The distinction between civil wrongs (disputes over wealth) and criminal offenses (defined by the concept of sin) was evident.

Key Takeaway: The ancient Indian judiciary was decentralized, guided by religious and moral principles (Dharma), with a hierarchy culminating in the King, and local disputes resolved by community assemblies.

2.2. Medieval Period: Islamic Influence and Centralization

With the advent of Islamic rule, particularly the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, the judicial system underwent significant changes, incorporating Islamic legal principles (Sharia) alongside existing customs.

• Sultan/Emperor as Supreme Authority: The Sultan or Emperor was the highest court of appeal and considered the "fountain of justice." They presided over courts like Mazalim and Diwan-e-mulzim.
• Qazis: Each provincial capital and significant town had a Qazi (judge) who conducted trials based on Sharia law. The Qazi-ul-Quzzat or Chief Qazi headed the judicial department.
• Hierarchy of Courts: A clear hierarchy of courts existed, rising from village panchayats to Parganah, Sarkar, Provincial, and ultimately, the Emperor's Court.
• Mir-adl: During the Mughal era, a secular judge known as Mir-adl was appointed to ensure unbiased inquiry and execute the Qazi's directives.
• Local Justice: Village panchayats continued to handle petty civil and criminal cases, retaining their customary law jurisdiction.
• Codified vs. Uncodified: While the Sharia provided a framework, there was often a blend of religious law, imperial firmans (decrees), and local customs.

Table: Hierarchy of Courts (Medieval Period - Mughal Empire)

2.3. British Period: Formalization and Common Law

The British colonial period marked a fundamental shift, introducing a centralized, hierarchical legal system based on English common law, aiming for uniformity and consistency.

• Early EIC Judicial Powers (17th - 18th Century): The East India Company (EIC) initially derived judicial powers from its charters. Mayor's Courts were established in Madras (1726), Bombay, and Calcutta, marking the beginning of a common law system based on judicial precedents.

• Regulating Act of 1773: This act was a watershed moment, laying the foundation for a centralized administration and establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta in 1774.

  • It consisted of a Chief Justice (Sir Elijah Impey was the first) and three other judges.
  • It had civil, criminal, admiralty, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
  • Initially, its jurisdiction extended to British subjects and company servants residing in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
  • It aimed to provide a better and more effective judicial tribunal and curb corruption among company servants.

• Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-1785):

  • Established District Diwani Adalats (civil courts) under Collectors and District Faujdari Adalats (criminal courts) under Indian officers, supervised by Collectors.
  • Appeals from these courts went to Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat in Calcutta.
  • Introduced the jury system.

• Reforms under Lord Cornwallis (1786-1793):

  • Introduced Cornwallis Code of 1793, giving final shape to the judicial system.
  • Abolished District Faujdari Adalats and established Circuit Courts at Calcutta, Dacca, Murshidabad, and Patna.
  • Separated revenue administration from justice, removing the Collector's judicial functions.
  • Created a hierarchy of civil and criminal courts including Munsiff's Courts, Registrars' Courts, District/City Courts, Provincial Courts, and the Sadar Diwani and Sadar Nizamat Adalats.
  • Introduced the concept of "Court of Records" for annual publication of judgments.

• Reforms under William Bentinck (1828-1835):

  • Abolished the four Circuit Courts and transferred their functions to Collectors under the supervision of Commissioners of Revenue and Circuit.
  • Established Sadr Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat at Allahabad for convenience.
  • Replaced Persian with English as the court language in the Supreme Court.
  • Constituted the First Law Commission in 1833 under Lord Macaulay which led to the codification of Indian laws, including the Civil Procedure Code (1859), Indian Penal Code (1860), and Criminal Procedure Code (1861).

• Indian High Courts Act of 1861: This Act empowered the Crown to establish High Courts in India.

  • It led to the establishment of High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1862, replacing the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats in these presidencies.
  • These High Courts had original and appellate jurisdiction over civil, criminal, admiralty, vice-admiralty, testamentary, intestate, and matrimonial matters.
  • They unified the dual court systems that existed (Company Courts and Crown Courts).
  • The Calcutta High Court was the first to be established (July 1, 1862).
  • It also permitted the establishment of other High Courts, such as the Allahabad High Court in 1866.

• Government of India Act, 1919: Introduced judicial reforms, notably the separation of the judiciary from governmental power.

• Government of India Act, 1935: This Act further structured the judiciary.

  • It provided for the establishment of a Federal Court of India in Delhi (established in 1937), which served as an appellate court for High Courts and had original jurisdiction in disputes between the Federation and provinces.
  • It widened the powers and duties of provincial and national parliaments.
  • The Federal Court was a crucial precursor to the present-day Supreme Court of India.

Flowchart: Evolution of Higher Courts during British Rule

Key Takeaway: The British era introduced a formalized, centralized, and hierarchical judicial system based on common law, culminating in the establishment of High Courts and a Federal Court.

2.4. Post-Independence: An Integrated and Independent Judiciary

India's independence in 1947 and the adoption of its Constitution in 1950 marked the dawn of a truly independent and integrated judicial system, with the Supreme Court at its apex.

• Constitution of India, 1950: The Constitution established the framework for an independent judiciary.
  • Supreme Court of India: Established as the highest court, succeeding the Federal Court and the Privy Council as the final court of appeal. It is detailed in Part V, Chapter IV (Articles 124-147) of the Constitution.
  • High Courts: Continued as the top judicial courts at the state level, under Part VI, Chapter V (Article 214 onwards).
  • Unified Judiciary: Unlike a federal system with separate federal and state courts, India adopted a single integrated judicial system that administers both Union and State laws. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.
  • Independence of Judiciary: The Constitution provides numerous provisions to ensure judicial independence, including the security of tenure for judges, fixed service conditions, charges on the Consolidated Fund, prohibition of discussion on judge's conduct in legislatures (except for impeachment), and prohibition on practicing after retirement (for Supreme Court judges). Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

Key Takeaway: Post-independence, India established a unified, integrated, and independent judiciary, enshrined in the Constitution, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of law and guardian of fundamental rights.

3. Key Provisions & Articles of the Constitution (Post-Independence)

The Constitution of India lays down a detailed framework for the judiciary, ensuring its independence, powers, and functions.

• Article 124: Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court

  • States there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges (initially; now 33 other judges).
  • Judges are appointed by the President after consultation with such Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary. In the case of appointing a judge other than the CJI, the CJI must always be consulted.
  • Provides for the removal of a judge only by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting and a majority of the total membership of that House) on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

• Article 125: Salaries, etc., of Judges

  • Ensures that salaries, allowances, and privileges of judges cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment.

• Article 129: Supreme Court to be a court of record

  • Confers the power to punish for contempt of itself.

• Article 131: Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

  • Covers disputes between the Union and one or more States, or between two or more States.

• Articles 132-134: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

  • Deals with appeals from High Courts in constitutional, civil, and criminal matters.

• Article 136: Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court

  • Grants the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

• Article 137: Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court

  • Empowers the Supreme Court to review its own judgments.

• Article 141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts

  • Establishes the principle of stare decisis (precedent), making Supreme Court decisions binding on all other courts in India.

• Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.

  • Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

• Article 214: High Courts for States

  • Establishes a High Court for each State.

• Article 217: Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court

  • Judges of High Courts are appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State, and in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.

• Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

  • Empowers High Courts to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto, Certiorari) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and "for any other purpose."

• Article 233-237: Subordinate Courts

  • Deals with the appointment of District Judges and other subordinate judicial officers.

Organogram: Structure of the Indian Judiciary

Explanation: This organogram illustrates the hierarchical structure of the Indian judiciary, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts, and then a network of subordinate courts down to the local level. This integrated system ensures a uniform administration of justice across the country.

4. Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a pivotal role in shaping constitutional law and safeguarding fundamental rights through a series of landmark judgments.

4.1. Judicial Appointments - The Judges' Cases & Collegium System

The method of appointing judges to the higher judiciary has been a subject of significant debate and judicial interpretation, leading to the evolution of the Collegium System.

• First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981):

  • This case addressed the constitutional validity of executive actions regarding non-appointment and transfer of judges, questioning the executive's influence over judicial appointments.
  • The Supreme Court, in a 5:2 majority, held that "consultation" in Articles 124 and 217 did not mean "concurrence." It affirmed that the executive (President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers) had primacy in judicial appointments, and the CJI's recommendation could be refused for "cogent reasons."
  • This ruling was seen as a setback for judicial independence, allowing the executive significant influence.

• Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 1993):

  • Overruled the S.P. Gupta case, establishing a specific procedure for judicial appointments and transfers.
  • The Court held that "consultation" does mean "concurrence" and that the CJI's opinion holds primacy.
  • It introduced the Collegium System, a closed group of judges for appointments. Initially, the Collegium comprised the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  • This decision shifted the primacy in judicial appointments from the executive to the judiciary.

• Third Judges Case (In Re Special Reference 1 of 1998):

  • On a presidential reference, the Supreme Court clarified and expanded the Collegium.
  • It ruled that the Collegium for Supreme Court appointments would comprise the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
  • For High Court appointments, the Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of that High Court and four other senior-most judges.

• Fourth Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015):

  • The Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, aiming to replace the Collegium System with a more transparent and broad-based body.
  • The NJAC comprised the CJI, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons.
  • However, the Supreme Court, in this case, declared both the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act unconstitutional, upholding the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments and restoring the Collegium System, citing it as an essential feature of judicial independence and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Table: Evolution of Judicial Appointment Mechanisms

4.2. Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If found unconstitutional, they can be declared null and void.

• Article 13: Declares that all laws inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void.

• Article 32 & 226: Guarantee the right to approach the Supreme Court (Art 32) and High Courts (Art 226) for constitutional remedies and issuing writs for fundamental rights enforcement.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This is one of the most significant judgments in Indian constitutional history.

  • The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its "Basic Structure."
  • This doctrine asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, judicial review, fundamental rights) are inviolable and cannot be abrogated by constitutional amendments.
  • It upheld the power of judicial review and ensured that the fundamental principles of governance remain protected from excessive legislative power.

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and held that "judicial review" itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. It also struck down certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act that sought to give primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights.

4.3. Expansion of Fundamental Rights and Justice

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initially, the Supreme Court held that the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was constitutional, taking a narrow interpretation of "procedure established by law" under Article 21.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case significantly broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
  • It established the "Golden Triangle" or "Trinity" of Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (life and liberty), holding that they are interconnected and cannot be read in isolation. This reversed the earlier narrow interpretation in the A.K. Gopalan case.

• Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997):

  • In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court laid down the "Vishaka Guidelines" to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
  • These guidelines were based on Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, emphasizing gender equality.
  • This led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Case, 2017):

  • A nine-judge bench unanimously declared the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21, protected by the Constitution.
  • This decision had far-reaching implications for data protection and individual liberty.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):

  • Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults by partially striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, affirming the rights to equality, dignity, and personal liberty.

• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq Case, 2017):

  • The Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

  • This judgment put significant checks on the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President's Rule in States), establishing that the President's power to dismiss a state government is not absolute and subject to judicial review.

• Association of Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024):

  • A five-judge panel invalidated the Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018, ruling that it violated the voters' right to information regarding political funding.

5. Current Relevance, Recent Reforms, and Debates

The Indian judiciary continues to evolve, facing new challenges and undergoing reforms to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and accountability.

• Pendency of Cases: A major challenge is the enormous backlog of cases, leading to delays in justice delivery.

  • Initiatives: E-Courts Project (digitizing court records, online filing, virtual courts), establishment of specialized tribunals (e.g., National Green Tribunal), and promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are some measures.
  • The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, aim to expedite commercial dispute resolution.

• Judicial Vacancies: Efforts are ongoing to address the shortage of judges, with increased appointments to the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate judiciary.

• Judicial Activism and Overreach: While judicial activism has been instrumental in expanding rights and ensuring accountability (e.g., PILs), debates persist regarding "judicial overreach," where the judiciary is perceived to be encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and executive.

• Transparency in Appointments: The Collegium System, despite its restoration, continues to draw criticism for its perceived lack of transparency and accountability, leading to calls for further reforms in judicial appointments.

• Judicial Standards and Accountability: The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (though not passed), aimed to regulate judges' conduct and establish a framework for examining misconduct allegations.

6. Comparative Analysis: Indian Federalism and Judiciary

India's judiciary, though integrated, operates within a federal structure.

• Integrated vs. Dual System: Unlike the U.S., which has separate federal and state judicial systems, India has a single, unified judiciary. This means that the Supreme Court of India stands at the apex of the entire judicial system, with High Courts and subordinate courts functioning under its administrative and appellate jurisdiction, enforcing both central and state laws.
• Constitutional Supremacy: Both India and the U.S. adhere to constitutional supremacy, with the judiciary acting as the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution.
• Judicial Review: The power of judicial review is well-established in both countries, allowing courts to strike down unconstitutional laws. In India, the Basic Structure Doctrine limits Parliament's amending power, a concept not explicitly present in the U.S. Constitution but implicitly understood through judicial interpretations.
• Appointment of Judges: The appointment process differs significantly. In the U.S., federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In India, the Collegium System, comprising judges, primarily handles appointments to the higher judiciary, a unique mechanism that evolved through judicial pronouncements.

7. Conclusion & Summary

The journey of the Indian judiciary is a testament to the nation's enduring commitment to justice and the rule of law. From ancient philosophical underpinnings to the institutionalized framework of the British Raj and finally, to the robust, independent, and integrated system of modern India, each phase has contributed to its unique character. While challenges such as pendency and transparency persist, ongoing reforms and the judiciary's proactive role, exemplified by landmark judgments, continue to strengthen its position as a vital pillar of Indian democracy. Its evolution underscores a continuous adaptation to societal needs, reaffirming its role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional values and protector of citizens' rights.

8. Practice Questions & Answers

To test your understanding of the evolution of the Indian Judiciary, attempt the following questions:

8.1. Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which of the following Acts established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta? a) Indian High Courts Act, 1861 b) Government of India Act, 1935 c) Regulating Act of 1773 d) Charter Act of 1833

   Answer: c) Regulating Act of 1773 Explanation: The Regulating Act of 1773 established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta in 1774, marking the beginning of a formal, institutionalized judicial system under British rule.

2. The concept of "Dharma" as a guiding principle for justice is primarily associated with which period of Indian judicial history? a) Medieval Period b) British Period c) Post-Independence Period d) Ancient Period

   Answer: d) Ancient Period Explanation: In ancient India, the notion of Dharma or law was inspired by the Vedas, which included rules of behavior and ceremonies, and was codified into Dharma Sutras.

3. The "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Indian Constitution was propounded in which landmark Supreme Court case? a) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) b) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) d) Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

   Answer: c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its fundamental features.

4. Which of the following accurately describes the "Second Judges Case" (1993) concerning judicial appointments? a) It gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. b) It introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). c) It established the Collegium System, holding "consultation" as "concurrence." d) It struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act.

   Answer: c) It established the Collegium System, holding "consultation" as "concurrence." Explanation: The Second Judges Case (1993) overruled the First Judges Case, stating that "consultation" meant "concurrence," thereby giving primacy to the CJI's opinion in appointments and introducing the Collegium System.

5. The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 led to the establishment of High Courts in which three presidency towns first? a) Delhi, Bombay, Madras b) Calcutta, Bombay, Madras c) Calcutta, Delhi, Allahabad d) Madras, Bombay, Allahabad

   Answer: b) Calcutta, Bombay, Madras Explanation: The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 empowered the Crown to create High Courts, and these were first established in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1862, replacing the existing Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats.

8.2. Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: In a newly independent nation with a codified constitution, there is a debate about the process of appointing judges to its apex court. One faction argues for complete executive control over appointments to ensure accountability to the elected government. Another faction insists that the highest judicial body should have the primary say in its own appointments to guarantee its independence from political influence.

Question: Drawing parallels from India's judicial evolution, discuss the merits and demerits of both approaches and explain how India has attempted to balance these concerns.

Answer Explanation:

This scenario reflects the core tension that has played out in the Indian judiciary's evolution, particularly concerning judicial appointments.

• Executive Primacy (Merits & Demerits):

  • Merits: Advocates for executive control argue that it ensures democratic accountability, as the executive is elected by the people. It allows the government to shape the judiciary in line with its mandate and potentially bring in judges who align with its policy objectives. It can also ensure a smoother coordination between the executive and the judiciary. In India, the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta, 1981) initially leaned towards executive primacy, viewing judicial consultation as non-binding.
  • Demerits: The significant demerit is the potential for political interference and erosion of judicial independence. If the executive has the final say, it could appoint judges based on political loyalty rather than merit, compromising the judiciary's impartiality and its ability to act as a check on executive power. This can lead to a 'committed judiciary' that is subservient to the government.

• Judicial Primacy (Merits & Demerits):

  • Merits: Proponents of judicial primacy argue that judges are best equipped to assess the suitability of candidates for judicial office, based on legal acumen, experience, and integrity. This approach is seen as crucial for maintaining the independence of the judiciary, protecting it from political pressures, and upholding the rule of law. It ensures that justice is dispensed without fear or favor. In India, this led to the evolution of the Collegium System, as established in the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases.
  • Demerits: Critics argue that judicial primacy, especially through a Collegium System, can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability. A closed-door system of appointments can be perceived as opaque, promoting nepotism or favoring certain individuals. It might also lead to a judiciary that is detached from broader societal concerns or the democratic will of the people. The proposal of the NJAC in India was an attempt to address these criticisms by introducing a broader, more accountable mechanism.

• India's Attempt at Balance: India has largely settled on a system of judicial primacy (Collegium System) for appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Supreme Court, through the Second and Third Judges Cases, interpreted "consultation" as "concurrence," effectively making the judiciary's recommendations binding on the executive.

  • Balance Aspect: While the Collegium (CJI + four senior-most judges) makes the recommendations, the President of India (acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers) officially appoints them. This introduces a formal executive role. However, the Fourth Judges Case (2015) decisively re-established judicial primacy by striking down the NJAC, affirming that judicial independence is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Ongoing Debate: The debate for a more transparent and accountable appointment mechanism, that also respects judicial independence, continues in India, highlighting the inherent complexities in balancing these two crucial democratic principles.

8.3. Match-the-Following Exercise

Match the following judicial reforms/developments with their associated period/act:

Answer:

1. 1 - C: The Federal Court was established under the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. 2 - D: The Collegium System was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993).
3. 3 - A: The Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta was established by the Regulating Act of 1773.
4. 4 - E: The Indian Penal Code (1860) was a result of the codification efforts by the First Law Commission, constituted under the Charter Act of 1833, chaired by Lord Macaulay.
5. 5 - B: The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 led to the amalgamation of the Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats, replacing them with new High Courts.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE