Explain the provisions of our Constitution which ensure

independence of Judiciary.
Ans. Independence of Judiciary in India Indian Constitution has given
high importance to the Independence of Judiciary System. Every
democratic country puts a great store on the independence of the
judiciary as a guarantee of individual freedom. Meaning of
Independence of Judiciary Judicial Independence or Independence of
Judiciary refers to an environment where judges are free to make
decisions or pass judgment without any pressure from the
government or other powerful entities.
Why is Judicial Independence important?
Judicial independence play an important role in maintaining the
democratic set-up of any country. An impartial and independent
judicial system alone can protect the rights of the citizens against the
arbitrary powers of the executive or legislature. Freedom from the
influence and control of the executive is of crucial importance. It is
important for individual freedom that the judges give their verdict
without fear or favor. It refers to an environment where the judge
can pass impartial judgment. Every democratic country adopts
various means to ensure freedom of the judiciary and thereby to
ensure individual freedom. The U.S.A. has adopted system of
separation of powers to ensure independence of the judiciary. But in
constitutional systems based on the concept of Parliamentary
sovereignty, the adoption of separation of powers is ruled out. This is
the case in England. This is also partly the case in India, for in India,
the doctrines of Parliamentary and constitutional sovereignty are
blended together.
Independence of Judiciary in India
The constitution of India adopts diverse devices to ensure the
independence of the judiciary in keeping with both the doctrines of
constitutional and Parliamentary sovereignty.
Q. 2. Write a short note on Judicial Review
Ans. Judicial Review in India
The power of judiciary to review and determine the validity of a law
or an order may be described as the power of judicial review. It is the
power to declare null and void any law found to be violating the
Constitution. It asserts the right of the judiciary and mo,-e specifically
the Supreme Court to review all subordinate legislations with
reference to the fundamental law of land. The Constitution does not
directly and explicitly confer on the Supreme Court the power of
judicial review. The power of judicial review was first pronounced by
the American Supreme Court in the famous case of Marbury v.
Madison, 1803.Chief Justice Marshall, while announcing the court
verdict, hold that the Review possessed the power to hold federal
laws void when they violated the fundamental law of the country.
The power of judicial review of legislation is given to the judiciary
both by the political theory and text of the constitution. There are
several specific provisions in the Indian Constitution guaranteeing
judicial review of legislation such as Arts.13, 32,131-136, 143,226,
246, 251, 254 and 372. Art. 13 specifically declare that any law which
contravenes any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution shall
be void.
The Constitutional validity of a law can be challenged in India on the
ground that the subject matter of legislation –
a. is not within the competence of the legislature which has passed
it,
b. is repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution, or
c. it infringes one of the fundamental rights.
It is said that the Indian Constitution does not afford the same scope
of judicial creativity to the courts as does the US Constitution. other
words, in India the scope of judicial review is not as broad as it is in
U.S.A.The Supreme Court itself has, in several judgments expressed
the ambit of judicial review. The Supreme Court has consistently
maintained that it can declare invalid enactments only if they violate
the expressly stated provisions of the Constitution. It does not
declare a law void on the ground that it violates the natural rights of
the citizens. However, on several occasions, the Supreme Court did
not hesitate in maintaining the distinct superiority particularly in the
matters related to the violation of Fundamental Rights. Whether it is
the case of Golak nath or Menaka Gandhi or Bank Nationalization,
the Supreme Court has displayed judicial creativity of a high order. In
Minerva Mills Case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 55 of the
Act of 1976(42nd Amendment) which amended Art.368 as beyond
the amending power of Parliament. The Court held that Sec. 55 was
null and void, because it removed all limitations on the amending
power of the Parliament and conferred upon the Union Legislature
power to amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy the
basic features of the Constitution.