Editing Judicial independence (section)

=== India ===
Judicial independence in India refers to the autonomy of the judiciary from the influence or interference of the executive and legislative branches of government. This principle is a cornerstone of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]] and a fundamental feature of the country's democratic framework. It ensures that judges are free to make decisions based solely on law and justice, without any external pressures, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-20 |title=Judicial Independence - Rau's IAS |url=https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/judicial-independence/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=compass.rauias.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Constitutional Provisions ====
The independence of the judiciary in India is enshrined in several provisions of the Constitution of India:

* Article 50 of the [[Directive Principles|Directive Principles of State Policy]] urges the state to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services.<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 March 2025 |title=Article 50 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192717/ |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 124 to 147 deal with the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]], while Articles 214 to 231 concern the [[High courts of India|High Courts]]. These provisions ensure security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and protection against arbitrary removal of judges.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/237570/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 121 and 211 prohibit the discussion of the conduct of judges in Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively, except in the context of impeachment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 121 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/598239/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 211 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496247/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 368 provides the procedure for constitutional amendments but does not permit the curtailment of judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 368 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594125/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Joshi |first=Krishnendra |date=2019-05-15 |title=The Doctrine of Basic Structure |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-basic-structure/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Appointment and Tenure of Judges ====
Originally, the appointment of judges was carried out by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges. However, the [[Collegium system|Collegium System]], evolved through Supreme Court judgments (notably the [[Collegium system|Second Judges Case]] in 1993), gave primacy to the judiciary (Specifically the [[Chief Justice of India|CJI]] and two senior judges of Supreme Court) in appointments and transfers of judges. This system aims to preserve independence by insulating the appointment process from political interference.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Editor |first=Vajiram |date=2025-03-10 |title=Collegium System in India, Meaning, Appointments, UPSC Notes |url=https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/collegium-system-and-appointments/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |language=en-IN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/753224/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a complex impeachment process requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity (Article 124(4)).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 124(4) in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41081345/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

==== Financial Independence ====
The Constitution also ensures financial independence by charging the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court and High Court judges to the [[Consolidated Fund|Consolidated Fund of India]] or the respective states, meaning they are not subject to vote by the legislature.

==== Judicial Review and Activism ====
Judicial independence empowers courts to exercise [[judicial review]], the authority to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality. The Supreme Court, through landmark judgments such as [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)]], upheld the [[Basic structure doctrine|Basic Structure Doctrine]], preventing Parliament from altering the Constitution's essential features, including judicial independence.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

Indian courts have also developed a tradition of [[judicial activism]], particularly through [[Public interest litigation in India|Public Interest Litigations (PILs)]], allowing courts to act on behalf of the public good even in the absence of a traditional legal dispute.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mahawar |first=Sneha |date=2022-08-05 |title=Judicial activism |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-activism/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Garg |first=Rachit |date=2021-02-23 |title=All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-public-interest-litigation-pil/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== During the Emergency (1975–1977) ====
One of the most significant tests of judicial independence in India occurred during the [[The Emergency (India)|Emergency]] declared by [[Indira Gandhi|Prime Minister Indira Gandhi]] from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. [[Civil liberties]] were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]] was severely curtailed. This period highlighted how the judiciary could be vulnerable to executive overreach—and how it responded under pressure.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-30 |title=Explained: The story of the Emergency |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/explained-the-story-of-the-emergency-9421688/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

===== The ADM Jabalpur Case (Habeas Corpus Case) =====
At the center of the judicial controversy during the Emergency was the [[ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla]] (1976) case, commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case. The question before the Supreme Court was: ''Can a person challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency when the right to life and liberty under Article 21 has been suspended?''<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Dhingra |first=Anjali |date=2024-09-24 |title=A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976) |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivakant-shukla/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

In a 4:1 majority judgment, the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] held that no person had the right to seek a writ of [[habeas corpus]] during the Emergency. This essentially gave the state unchecked power to detain individuals without trial. The lone dissent came from [[Hans Raj Khanna|Justice H.R. Khanna]], who famously ruled that ''"Even in absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of life or liberty without authority of law."'' His courageous stand cost him the position of [[Chief Justice of India]], as he was superseded in seniority.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-06-25 |title=43 years since Emergency: A look back at HR Khanna, the judge who stood up to Indira Gandhi |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/43-years-since-emergency-a-look-back-at-hr-khanna-the-judge-who-stood-up-to-indira-gandhi-365539.html |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Firstpost |language=en-us}}</ref>

This decision is widely regarded as a dark moment in Indian judicial history, where the judiciary was seen to have failed in its duty to protect fundamental rights.<ref name=":1" />

===== Executive Influence and Supercession of Judges =====
[[The Emergency (India)|The Emergency]] also saw executive interference in judicial appointments. In several instances, senior judges were superseded in favor of more pliant ones—particularly those seen as more favorable to the government. This practice undermined the convention of seniority and was viewed as a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Pai |first=Amit A. |date=2023-04-26 |title=1973 April 26- The Saddest Day In The History Of Our Free Institution |url=https://www.livelaw.in/articles/supreme-court-supersession-justice-jm-shelat-justice-ks-hegde-and-justice-an-grover-justice-an-ray-227230 |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>

[[A. N. Ray|Justice A.N. Ray]], who sided with the majority in the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati]] case but dissented from the majority in the [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/513801/ Bank Nationalization case], was appointed [[Chief Justice of India]] by superseding three senior judges in 1973—an event often seen as a precursor to the erosion of judicial independence during the Emergency.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=A.N. Ray |url=https://www.scobserver.in/judges/a-n-ray/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>

===== Legacy and Reassessment =====
After the Emergency ended and the [[Janata Party]] came to power, there was widespread introspection. The ADM Jabalpur judgment was heavily criticized, and many later Supreme Court decisions essentially overruled it in spirit, even if not formally.

In 2017, the Supreme Court in the [[Puttaswamy v. Union of India|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (privacy case) declared the ADM Jabalpur ruling to be “seriously flawed” and overruled it explicitly. The judgment reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even in times of crisis, thereby restoring the dignity of judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>