Judicial independence is the doctrine that the judiciary must be free from interference or influence of the executive, legislature, or any external pressure while discharging its functions. The Indian Constitution incorporates several provisions to safeguard judicial independence, making it central to democratic functioning.

Why Judicial Independence is a Prerequisite of Democracy

1. Guardian of Fundamental Rights - An independent judiciary ensures protection of citizens against executive or legislative overreach.

   Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) upheld the Basic Structure doctrine.

2. Maintains Rule of Law - Prevents arbitrary use of power by holding authorities accountable.

   Example: Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.

3. Checks and Balances in Democracy - Prevents concentration of power in one organ of government. Judiciary acts as a balancing force between Parliament and Executive.

4. Confidence of the People in Justice System - Citizens’ faith in impartial justice strengthens democracy. Without independence, judiciary risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism.

5. Safeguard During Political Instability - During emergencies, only an independent judiciary can uphold constitutional values.

   Example: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) became a lesson on the dangers of judicial compromise.

Constitutional Provisions Ensuring Judicial Independence

1. Separation of Powers – Article 50 (DPSP): State shall separate judiciary from executive in the public services of the State.

2. Security of Tenure – Article 124(4) (SC Judges) & Article 217 (HC Judges): Judges can only be removed by impeachment on grounds of “proved misbehavior or incapacity.”

3. Fixed Service Conditions – Articles 125 & 221: Salaries, allowances, and privileges of judges cannot be altered to their disadvantage.

4. Financial Independence – Articles 112–113 & 203–204: Judges’ salaries are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India/State and are not subject to vote of Parliament/State legislature.

5. Appointments – Article 124(2) (SC) & Article 217(1) (HC): Judges appointed by the President in consultation with judiciary → evolved into the Collegium system through Second Judges Case (1993).

6. Judicial Review – Articles 13, 32, 226: Empower courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

7. Contempt of Court Powers – Articles 129 & 215: SC and HCs are courts of record with power to punish for contempt to protect dignity and independence.

Challenges to Judicial Independence in India

1. Opaque Appointment System - Collegium system (evolved through Second Judges Case, 1993) lacks transparency and accountability. Absence of clear criteria leads to allegations of nepotism and favoritism.

   Law Commission Report (214th, 2008) flagged the need for reforms in judicial appointments.

2. Post-Retirement Appointments - Judges accepting positions in tribunals, commissions, or as Governors soon after retirement raise concerns of impartiality in judgments.

   Example: Criticism of judges taking up political appointments soon after retiring.

3. Executive Pressure in Transfers - Under Article 222, President (on CJI’s advice) can transfer judges of High Courts. This power, if misused, can undermine independence.

   Example: Controversial transfer of Justice Jayant Patel (2017) raised concerns about punitive transfers.

4. Judicial Overreach and Activism - Encroachment into executive/legislative domains raises concerns about separation of powers.

   Example: SC interventions in policy matters like bans, environmental regulations without adequate consultation.

5. Political Polarization and Public Pressure - High-profile political cases often draw sharp public criticism of judicial decisions. Social media scrutiny risks influencing judicial conduct and impartiality.

6. Underfunded Judicial Infrastructure - Budget allocation to judiciary is less than 0.1% of GDP, affecting digital courts, e-filing, and staff shortages.

   India Justice Report 2022 ranked states poorly on infrastructure and staffing.

7. Contempt of Court Debate - While Articles 129 & 215 empower SC/HCs to punish for contempt, critics argue it shields judiciary from accountability and stifles criticism.

   Prashant Bhushan contempt case (2020) revived this debate.

Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges but a right of citizens to fair justice. The framers of the Indian Constitution envisioned the judiciary as the “guardian of the Constitution”, and its independence is essential for the survival of democracy.