A Committed Judiciary

Author(s):  
T.R. Andhyarujina

The tipping point in the history of judicial appointments in India was the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ((1973) 4 SCC 225). In this essay that spans the tumultuous period between this judgment and the end of the Emergency (in 1977) when Indira Gandhi was prime minister, the author demonstrates how judicial appointments became a proxy for a larger battle for control of the Constitution. Arguing that the independence of the judiciary was imperilled beyond redemption, the author carefully traces the pattern of executive interference up to and after the proclamation of Emergency. This essay argues that the severe blow dealt to judicial independence in this period, in a way, determined the course of how the process for judicial appointments was shaped in future decades.

Author(s):  
Peter McCormick

This essay traces the genesis of the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court Act of 1875, and the appointment procedure as described in it. The essay argues that the widening of the pool, where consultation for judicial appointments is made, has resulted in the appointment of persons with diverse credentials. The author describes how a reformed procedure for appointments involves the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice consulting various Chief Justices, law school deans, and provincial justice ministers to solicit names of potential appointees. The Canadian experience demonstrates variations in appointment mechanisms for broad-based consultation even in the absence of a commission model. The author, however, rues that most innovations in the appointments process have been short-lived, with a general shift to a more secretive process for appointments.


Author(s):  
Suhrith Parthasarathy

This essay is an overview of the use of comparative law in the NJAC Case, and offers a critique of the Supreme Court’s analysis of comparative law in judicial appointments. The essay argues that the Supreme Court adopted an isolationist approach by shunning international experience from fifteen countries cited before it by the Union of India to drive home the point that executive presence in judicial appointments does not, by itself, impinge upon judicial independence. The author contests the Supreme Court’s cursory dismissal of relevant international experience on the ground that India, with its peculiar set of circumstances cannot replicate the experiences of other nations in judicial appointments. The author argues that this is self-serving and the judgment would have been better served by a surer grasp of comparative law and its rationales.


In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC 1], a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, which replaced the existing collegium system with the NJAC, a new bipartisan model for appointing judges. This edited volume uses the judgment in the NJAC Case as a springboard to address the politics, doctrine, and developments pertaining to judicial appointments in India. It critically examines fundamental constitutional concepts such as rule of law, separation of powers, basic structure, and judicial independence which formed the basis of the judgment. It provides a rich and detailed history of post-Independence appointment of judges to locate the NJAC Case in its proper constitutional context. It also analyses reforms to judicial appointments in key South Asian and common law jurisdictions to understand what appointments in India might look like in the future. The volume has 21 essays across three parts—Part I provides an analysis of judicial appointments in India from the time prior to Independence to the present day, Part II analyses constitutional principles and their application in the NJAC Case, and Part III is a comparative enquiry into appointments processes in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.


Author(s):  
Dickson Brice

This chapter begins by considering the eligibility requirements for appointment to the Irish Supreme Court before tracing the history of the system for selecting the judges. Particular attention is given to whether the judges selected have been politically independent. The work of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is analysed, as are the current proposals to create a Judicial Appointments Commission and a Judicial Council. A section charts the rise in judicial salaries and examines the controversy over the constitutionality of asking judges to take a pay cut after Ireland’s financial crisis in 2008. After a brief section on retirement ages there is a narrative of who has succeeded whom in the Supreme Court from 1924 until today (57 judges in all). The chapter concludes with an analysis of the extent to which Supreme Court judges have been representative of Irish society.


Author(s):  
Gopal Subramanium

This essay comments on how the judgment in the National Judicial Appointments Commission Case is a befitting affirmation of judicial independence by the Supreme Court, against endemic executive interference in judicial appointments and transfers. This essay provides a conceptual understanding of judicial independence, against the backdrop of certain pivotal instances from India’s judicial history. The highlight of this essay is the author’s discussion of Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth ((1977) 4 SCC 193)—a judgment crucial for establishing the contours of judicial independence in the context of transfer of High Court judges. This essay gives this case the attention it merits by addressing the issue of judicial independence against its backdrop.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Syed Salahuddin Ahmad

The purpose of this write up is not to analyze the objectives and the features of the NAB Ordinance. This is also not a critical study of the functions and performances of the National Accountability Bureau. The purpose of this short article is to evaluate the performance of the incumbent Chairman Mr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry through the critical eyes of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. When General Pervaiz Musharraf seized power in October 1999 after over throwing the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, one of the first tasks that he undertook was to promulgate National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. For its intent and purpose the NAB ordinance was a remarkable piece of legislation in the law making history of Pakistan. NAB is an autonomous apex body to root out corruption from body polity of Pakistan


Author(s):  
Chintan Chandrachud

This essay discusses United Kingdom’s transition to the commission model of judicial appointments, with the advent of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 (CRA). The essay expounds that the commission model in the UK provides for a sustained participation of ‘lay’ members, who are expected to be representatives of the civil society. The author aligns with the view that the fragmentation of the appointments process amongst various actors is an exercise towards appointing a more diverse judiciary, and in no way impinging upon judicial independence. This essay analyses how the Supreme Court of India in the NJAC Case interpreted the appointments process ushered in by the UK CRA. This essay critiques the Indian Supreme Court’s reading of the CRA, and how the Court’s conclusion that the appointments processes in the UK shows an increasing trend toward judicialization may either be incorrect, or highly reductionist.


Subject Outlook for India's judiciary. Significance Sharad Arvind Bobde last month succeeded Ranjan Gogoi as chief justice. Before retiring from the Supreme Court, Gogoi announced verdicts in several important cases, including a dispute over a religious site in which the Court favoured a Hindu claimant. That particular outcome was a fillip for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, which strongly promotes majoritarian Hindu values. Impacts The Modi government will try to implement the National Register of Citizens across India, stoking religious tensions. The Supreme Court’s response to petitions challenging Modi’s Kashmir move will show how far it is willing to confront the executive. Obligation on the chief justice to disclose nominations for higher judicial appointments may breed greater confidence in India’s judiciary.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Chafetz

131 Harvard Law Review 96-132 (2017)Recent years have seen intense conflicts over federal judicial appointments, culminating in Senate Republicans' 2016 refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats' 2017 filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the same seat, and Republicans' triggering of the "nuclear option" to confirm Gorsuch. At every stage in this process, political actors on both sides have accused one another of "unprecedented" behavior.This Essay, written for the 2017 Supreme Court issue of the Harvard Law Review, examines these disputes and their histories, with an eye toward understanding the ways in which discussions of (un)precedentedness work in constitutional politics.Part I examines recent conflicts in judicial appointments, beginning in the George W. Bush administration and running through the 2017 elimination of the filibuster for all nominees. It focuses on the discourse surrounding these reforms, noting that at every turn, accusations of "unprecedented" behavior have flown in all directions and have served as justifications for countermeasures, which are in turn characterized as unprecedented. Part II then reconstructs two pasts — two precedential pathways — for recent events, one drawing on the history of legislative obstruction and the other on the history of confirmation politics. The purpose of these historical narratives is not to adjudicate particular claims of unprecedentedness but rather to highlight the ways in which any claim of (un)precedentedness involves particular, contestable constructions of the past. The Essay concludes with some thoughts about why we might prefer some available pasts to others.


Author(s):  
Bennett Capers

This chapter focuses on a few issues related to video evidence and law, especially with respect to American law. The first issue is the history of the use of video evidence in court. The second issue involves constitutional protections regarding the state’s use of surveillance cameras. The chapter then turns to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris to raise concerns about the use of video evidence as not just proof but “truth.” These are of course just a sampling of the issues that the topic of video evidence could raise. The hope is that this chapter will spur further inquiry on the part of the reader.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document