1.

Judicial Independence:

Judicial independence is a term that has two distinct meanings as it applies to matters of the judiciary. In one
context, it refers to the idea of separation of powers, called institutional independence, where the judiciary is
kept separate from other branches of government. The main reason for establishing judicial independence is to
avoid improper influence on the court from the other branches of government.
The other commonly used context is called decisional independence, and it refers to an ideal whereby judicial
decision-making is able to exist free of undue influence from outside agents who are acting from partisan or
special-interest motivations, rather than being motivated by the demands and ideals of justice.

When the framers of our constitution were anxious about the kind of judicial system or judiciary India must
have, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar gave the answer to their concerns. He stated that:

“There can be no difference of opinion in the House that our judiciary must be both independent of the
executive and must also be competent in itself and the question is how these two objects can be secured.”

Independence of judiciary essentially means that separating the judiciary from other organs of the government,
that is, executive and the legislature. However, the major problem in understanding this independence is that,
judiciary is independent from the legislature and the executive and not accountability. It also means
independence of the judges that form the judiciary.

Independence of judiciary is needed because:

1. Judiciary is the watchdog of Indian Constitution and it checks the functioning of other organs of the
government.
2. The judiciary plays a vital role in interpreting the provisions of the constitution and it is important that such
interpretation is unbiased ad free from any sort of pressure from the executive or legislature.
3. The judiciary is expected to deliver impartial justice. This is what makes it the most important organ of the
government. It is important that the judgements are not influenced by any sort of political inflictions.

2. Judicial accountability:
The phrase judicial accountability describes the view that judges should be held accountable in some way for
their work. This could be public accountability—getting approval from voters in elections—or accountability to
another political body like a governor or legislature

Judicial accountability brings about transparency and it can only be achieved if the accountability is ensured
and corruption in the system is brought to a stop. Many questions arise as to what has gone wrong with the
system. Pt. Nehru has said in a statement, “Judges of the Supreme Court sit on ivory towers far removed from
ordinary men and know nothing about them.”
3. Judicial Activism:

The concept of judicial activism originated and developed in the USA. This term was first coined in 1947 by Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., an American historian and educator.
In India, the doctrine of judicial activism was introduced in mid-1970s. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N. Bhagwati,
Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice D.A. Desai laid the foundations of judicial activism in the country.

MEANING OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Judicial activism denotes the proactive role played by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and in the
promotion of justice in the society. In other words, it implies the assertive role played by the judiciary to force the other
two organs of the government (legislature and executive) to discharge their constitutional duties.

Judicial activism is also known as “judicial dynamism”. It is the antithesis of “judicial restraint”, which means the self-
control exercised by the judiciary.
Judicial activism is defined in the following way:
1. “Judicial activism is a way of exercising judicial power that motivates judges to depart from normally practised strict
adherence to judicial precedent in favour of progressive and new social policies. It is commonly marked by decision
calling for social engineering, and occasionally these decisions represent intrusion in the legislative and executive
matters”.
2. “Judicial activism is the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that
depart from established precedent, or are independent of, or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislation
intent”.

4. Collegium :

The Collegium system of appointment of judges is popularly referred to as judges-selecting-judges.

What is the Collegium system?

The Collegium system is one where the Chief Justice of India and a forum of four senior-most judges of the Supreme
Court recommend appointments and transfers of judges. However, it has no place in the Indian Constitution. The system
was evolved through Supreme Court judgments in the >Three Judges Cases (October 28, 1998)

Supreme court-framed collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges of high courts and the Supreme Court,
the chief justice of the respective high courts and two other senior-most judges of the court comprise a collegium
empowered by virtue of a 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court to identify suitable candidates, do due diligence and
recommend for appointment as judges of the court.

The shortlisted candidates are scrutinized by a collegium of five senior-most judges of the apex court headed by Chief
Justice of India before being cleared for appointment. The same collegium of the apex court identifies serving judges and
chief justices of high courts for elevation to the Supreme Court.
There is no mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution of India or in successive amendments.

5. National Judicial Appointments Commission –NJAC

What is the NJAC?

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) is a constitutional body proposed to replace the present
Collegium system of appointing judges.

Why is Collegium system being criticised?

The >Central government has criticised it saying it has created an imperium in imperio (empire within an empire) within
the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Bar Association has blamed it for creating a “give-and-take” culture, creating a rift between the
haves and have-nots. >“While politicians and actors get instant relief from courts, the common man struggles for years
for justice.”

How and when was the NJAC established?

The NJAC was established by amending the Constitution [Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014] passed by
the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on August 14 2014. Alongside, the Parliament also passed the
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, to regulate the NJAC’s functions. Both Bills were ratified by 16 of
the State legislatures and the President gave his assent on December 31, 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional
Amendment Act came into force from April 13, 2015.

On 16 October 2015 the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court by 4:1 Majority upheld the collegium system and struck
down the NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies with Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead petitioner.[12][13] Justices J S Khehar, MB Lokur,
Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice
Chelameswar upheld it
6. PIL - Public Interest Litigation / Social Interest Litigation (SIL):

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated and developed in the USA in the 1960s. In the USA, it was
designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests.
In India, the PIL is a product of the judicial activism role of the Supreme Court. It was introduced in the early 1980s.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati were the pioneers of the concept of PIL.

PIL is also known variously as Social Action Litigation (SAL), Social Interest Litigation (SIL) and Class Action Litigation
(CAL).

MEANING OF PIL:

The introduction of PIL in India was facilitated by the relaxation of the traditional rule of ‘locus standi’. According to this
rule, only that person whose rights are infringed alone can move the court for the remedies, whereas, the PIL is an
exception to this traditional rule.

Under the PIL, any public-spirited citizen or a social organization can move the court for the enforcement of the rights
of any person or group of persons who because of their poverty or ignorance or socially or economically disadvantaged
position are themselves unable to approach the court for the remedies. Thus, in a PIL, any member of the public having
‘sufficient interest’ can approach the court for enforcing the rights of other persons and redressal of a common
grievance.

The Supreme Court has defined the PIL as “a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”

PIL is absolutely necessary for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and accelerating the pace of
realisation of the constitutional objectives.

In other words, the real purposes of PIL are:

(i) Vindication of the rule of law,
(ii) Facilitating effective access to justice to the socially and economically weaker sections of the society
(iii) Meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights.
7. Constitutional Bench (INDIA) :

Constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India which consist of at least five judges
of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the
Constitution of India. This provision has been mandated by Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice
of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and refer cases to it.

Constitution benches have decided many of India’s best-known and most important Supreme Court cases, such as A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (basic structure doctrine) and Ashoka Kumar Thakur
v. Union of India (OBC reservations) etc.

8. Writ / Appeal

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern
usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many
forms exist and have existed.

Under the Indian legal system, jurisdiction to issue 'prerogative writs' is given to the Supreme Court, and to the High
Courts of Judicature of all Indian states. Parts of the law relating to writs are set forth in the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court, the highest in the country, may issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights and under Articles 139 for enforcement of rights other than Fundamental Rights, while High Courts,
the superior courts of the States, may issue writs under Articles 226.

The Constitution broadly provides for five kinds of "prerogative" writs: habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo
warranto and prohibition.

Appeal:

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed, where parties request a formal change to an official
decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law.
9. Locus Standi

The word locus (plural loci) is Latin for "place". “Locus standi” is Latin for ‘place to stand’- In law, the right to bring an
action. It is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action
challenged to support that party's participation in the case

Article 32 deals with right to move the supreme court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Locus Standi is mandatory for most of the provisions under Article 32 while in few cases, Locus standi is not necessary.

Master of Roster :

What does 'master of the roster' mean?

‘Master of the Roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches to hear cases.

This privilege was emphasised in November last year, when a Constitution Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India Dipak
Misra, declared that “the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the
Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.”

It further said that “no Judge can take up the matter on this own, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is
the master of the roster.”

The immediate trigger for this was a direction by a two-judge Bench (led by Justice Chelameswar) that a petition
regarding a medical college corruption case, involving an alleged conspiracy to bribe Supreme Court judges, be heard by
a Bench fo the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

What is the position of the four judges on the ‘master of the roster’ issue?

They regard it as “one of the well-settled principles” and a convention that is important for an orderly transaction of
business. But, they write in the letter, it isn’t a recognition of superior authority of the Chief Justice over his colleagues.
Their point is that the Chief Justice is only the "first among equals," a phrase that Chief Justice Misra himself had used in
the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India order.

In their letter, the four judges have also written that there are “well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the
Chief Justice” in the determination of the roster, including those about the strength of the Bench to deal with a
particular case. Of late, they write, these rules haven’t been strictly adhered to.
“There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been
assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court selectively to the Benches “of their preferences” without any rational basis for
such assignment.”