Is Intervention of Legislature and Executive in Indian Judiciary Justifiable?

Government of India is made up of three organs which are know as Judiciary,

Executive and Legislature. There is separation of powers between three different
organs. Due to the tasks they perform is different from each other. As the tasks are
different from each other their power prevails in their own sphere. This results in
them being accountable for their actions in different manors. While commenting of
separation of powers, the separation is protected by the constitution through its
Doctrine of basic structure. This is done for lesser infringement of once work in
others and to achieve mastery in the area of the field.
In general, speaking about the organs, the nature and functions are directed towards
public betterment and utility. Hence, we can say they are ultimately bound to the
public. This is know as public welfare and this should be the ultimate goal of each and
every organ. Speaking specifically, Legislature is bound to make laws for the people.
The Introduced bills passes through houses of parliament and later through presidents
assent becomes an act. Which means a law which is binding in nature on the people or
the respective states. Judiciary as the guardian of the constitution through ambit of
Article 13 and Judicial Review have the capability to intervenes and rejects the laws
which are violate the fundamental rights of the citizen or the laws which are deemed
to be not fit. By doing this, Judiciary simultaneously can set guidelines and be part of
law making. Infant the judgments passed are enforced as laws, through obeying the
power of presidents. Example: In Vishka Case, Judiciary set the guidelines in regards
to sexual harassment of women at work place. In further judiciary can direct the
executives to work in a certain direction. For Example: In Ratlam Municipality case,
Judiciary directed the executive members to prepare a drainage plan within six
months for the public welfare. Indeed, it can appoint special workforce for public
welfare. In an overview, Judiciary in few occasions is capable of intervention in the
spheres of Legislature and Executive through help of Judicial Activism and Public
Interest Litigation.
Through observation we can point out that Judiciary is capable of Intervention.
Hence, we can also interpret that Judiciary is capable of directing the other organs of
the state if that particular organ is failing to do justice to its own functions. In other
perspective, we can say the functions are moderated through monitoring. Through this
process there is transparency in the work which is achieved in the functioning of
legislature and executive. Thus, resulting in public welfare and reduction of
commission of wrongful acts which results in downfall at public at large. The
question which aroused now is, Judiciary capable of monitoring but judiciary being
self monitoring and self sufficiency enough in conducting its own functions has raised
a question of Judicial accountability?
Thus this article aims to discuss why Judiciary is enjoying these privileges, Why other
organs cannot intervene in the functions of Judiciary.

Judicial Independence:
The Judiciary in India is privileged to conduct themselves individually due to the
facility of doctrine of basic structure. Which is Independent Judiciary and is part of it.
This being the motive and Constitution being the supreme law of the land there is no
possibility of Executive and legislative Infringement in Judiciary.

Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation

Every organ is liable towards public though the public approaches judiciary more than
others in order to get justice. This is the relationship which exists between Judiciary
and the people. This relationship is established in such a manor because of the trust
which is build on judiciary.
Judiciary is the organ which interprets the law made by the parliament and ensures the
maintenance of fundamental rights. As there is power of Judiciary to intervene in the
other spheres there is a restraining forced from Executive and Legislative as over use
and exploitation of the power given to judiciary. In this debate, there is a concept
which is evolved called Judicial Activism. This allows the infringement of the
judiciary in the tasks of executive and Legislature. Though this power is given to
Judiciary through power of Public Interest Litigation. This allows the poor to step to
the doors of the judiciary. This helps to protect the interests of the larger sections of
the society. Through this protecting the citizens right, protects the interests of the
people, Setting guideline for the people and the organs, provides remedies for the
problems and is also involved in many other major tasks.
Doing this is tremendous but accountability becomes a question due to it being
independent. The judiciary is enjoying independence but the neither the involvement
nor the monitoring by other organs is resulting is heat debate resulting in Judaical
accountability. In order to increase accountability there needs to be increase in
transparency. Hence, this paper discusses the ways in which transparency could also
be improved. Besides it states why Judiciary needs to be independent?

Judicial Transparency:
The term Judicial Transparency comes into the scene where the Judiciary displays its
accountability. This means, the function performed by them should be in the stage
which can be viewed by the people or by other organs.

1) Judicial Transparency through Intervention of Political System.

The intervention of political system can be referred as interference of Legislator or
Executive in the functions of the Judiciary. The interference of the external forces can
be a judiciary system know as National Judicial Appointment Commission. Where
there is no interference of external forced can be termed as Collegium System.
Actually NJAC is proposed to replace the collegium system of appointing the judges.

NJAC(National Judicial Appointment Commission) Vs Collegium

NJAC Collegium
Comprises of Six people, Chief Justice of Comprises of Chief Justice of India and
Indian, two senior most judges of the Four senior most judges of the
Supreme Court, The minister of Law and Supreme Court.
Justice, lastly the two eminent persons
nominated in coordination with the Chief
Justice of India, Prime Minster and the
Leader of opposition party in the Lok
Sabha.
Article 124 A Has no place in Indian Constitution.
99th Amendment of the Constitution. Has evolved through three Judge cases of
Passing of NJAC Act,2014 and It came the Supreme Court.
into force on April 13 ,2015.

Collegium System has been referred as an “Empire with in an Empire”. This happens
because the transfer of Judges from the High court to Supreme Court and the other
courts are done by the members of the Judiciary. In doing so they are not being
monitored. There is also a say where it is said that Politicians gets instant relief where
as common man face difficulty in getting speedy justice.
Through NJAC there is Intervention of political system in the Indian Judiciary at the
same time they we can held the Judiciary accountable due to transparency. Though,
the contrasting view says, the Judiciary is left independent in order to avoid the
pressure from the other system in the process of delivering the justice. This is the
reason for the evolution of the theme Independent Judiciary.

2) Transparency achievement through Prescribed Conducts:

 Decision should be honest
 No person can Judge his own case because every person thinks in a manor in
which he presumes to be correct.
 Administer justice in each and every case.
 Equal opportunity to put forwards their views in front of the court.
 A distance should be maintained from relative in order to avoid influence of
perspectives.
 Social Functions needs to be restrained to an extent..
 No statements should be made in Media.

Suggestion:
The Judiciary major concern is delivering the Justice without having pressure of
political system. But, the appointment of the judges do not require any delivery of the
Judgement. Here, the only thing which is being asked is transparency in appointment
of the judges. Hence, this point should be considered in order to promote NJAC. This
indeed places the potential judges in the higher judiciary.
Above all there is should a criteria for appointment of the judges, they should not
conduct the process in the way they wish to. A setting up the criteria and meeting the
conditions results in more transparency. Indeed, the criteria should be published in
public so that the people can understand the process.
Appointment of the special workforce for monitoring the acts of the Judiciary Can
also be a solution.