Constitutionalising the Judiciary: A Deep Dive into India's Higher Courts

**Navigating the Complexities of Judicial Power and Accountability** As we delve into the realm of Constitutional Law in India, it becomes apparent that the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government is a delicate one. The Constitution of India, in its Article 50, explicitly mentions the importance of an independent judiciary, while also emphasizing the need for accountability. This dichotomy is at the heart of the judicial conundrum in India.

Origins of Judicial Power

The Constitution of India, through Article 50, empowers the Parliament to establish a Supreme Court and other courts for the administration of justice. The Supreme Court, as the highest court of the land, has the power to review and declare laws and government actions unconstitutional. However, this power is not unfettered. The Constitution sets limits on the judiciary's ability to review laws, particularly those related to the "basic structure" of the Constitution, as enunciated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala.

"The Constitution is not a mere lawyer's document, it is a document of the people, and it is a living instrument, which moulds itself according to the needs of the people." - Justice Gopala Gowda, AIR 2018 SC 1420

Judicial Accountability: A Balancing Act

The need for judicial accountability is underscored by the fact that the judiciary is not above the law. The Constitution of India, through Article 217, empowers the President to remove judges of the High Courts on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. Furthermore, the Inquiries into the Conduct of Judges Act, 1968, allows for the inquiry into the conduct of judges. However, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that judicial independence is essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy.

Executive-Judicial Confrontations

The relationship between the executive and the judiciary has been a contentious one in India. The infamous ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla case, which upheld the Indira Gandhi government's decision to impose a state of emergency, remains a contentious issue in the realm of Constitutional Law. The case highlighted the tension between the executive and the judiciary, with the Supreme Court ultimately upholding the government's decision.

Why This Matters Today

As we navigate the complexities of Constitutional Law in India, it becomes apparent that the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government is more important than ever. The recent controversy surrounding the Prashant Bhushan vs. Union of India case, which led to the disbarment of the senior advocate, highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary. As we move forward, it is essential that we prioritize judicial accountability while maintaining the independence of the judiciary. Only then can we ensure that the Constitution remains a living instrument, shaping the needs of the people.