How the judiciary maintains accountability, Pg10

• The article explores the mechanisms through which the judiciary in India maintains accountability, emphasizing that while judges cannot be easily removed, their powers are circumscribed by the Constitution.

• It discusses the concept of the 'super parliament' tag often associated with the judiciary and argues against it, stating that the judiciary's role is to interpret the Constitution, not to act as a legislative body.

• The importance of public scrutiny and adherence to constitutional limits as checks on judicial power are highlighted.

• The author argues that the fear of an overreaching judiciary is largely unfounded because the Constitution itself limits the powers of the President and Governors based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Similarly, the judiciary's authority is derived from and bound by the Constitution.

• The process for removing a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court is deliberately made difficult, requiring a special majority in both houses of Parliament followed by the President's order, to ensure judicial independence.

• Despite the difficulty in removal, the judiciary's accountability lies in its adherence to the Constitution and the understanding that its powers do not extend beyond constitutional limits. Any action exceeding these limits can be deemed unsustainable.

• The article critiques the notion of the judiciary as a 'super parliament', asserting that while the judiciary interprets laws and the Constitution, it does not legislate. The ultimate authority to make laws rests with the elected representatives in the Parliament.

• Public opinion and scholarly criticism serve as important informal checks on the judiciary's functioning, encouraging self-correction and adherence to established legal principles.

• Separation of Powers: The doctrine that governmental powers are divided among three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

• Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review and invalidate legislative or executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional.

• Constitutionalism: Governance in accordance with a constitution, especially a written constitution.

• Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from influence or control by the other branches of government or by private or partisan interests.

• Accountability: The obligation of power-holders to be answerable for their actions.

• Provides a balanced perspective on judicial power and accountability in India.

• Clarifies the constitutional limitations on the judiciary, countering the 'super parliament' narrative.

• Emphasizes that judicial accountability is maintained through adherence to the Constitution and public scrutiny, rather than easy removability.

Mains Mock Question:

"Critically analyze the mechanisms through which the judiciary in India maintains accountability while upholding its independence. Discuss the validity of the perception that the judiciary is acting as a 'super parliament'."