Revision summary
Democracy needs courts that can enforce the Constitution against the elected majority. Articles 50, 121, 124, 211 and 217, charged salaries, and a hard removal process are the main guarantees. The 99th Amendment and the NJAC were struck down in 2015 as a threat to independence of appointments. Independence is a prerequisite; opacity of the collegium is a separate reform problem, not a reason to remove the guarantee.
Model answer
Introduction
Democracy needs an independent court that can hold the elected executive and the legislature to the Constitution. The Constitution of India therefore writes judicial independence into appointment, tenure, salaries, and speech in Parliament, rather than leaving it to political goodwill.
Body
Why independence is a democratic prerequisite
- A democracy is not only majority rule; it is majority rule under a written Constitution that the courts can enforce.
- Without independence, fundamental rights, federal limits, and free elections become paper promises that the government of the day can ignore.
- Articles 32 and 226 give the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power to issue writs; that power is useless if judges fear removal, pay cuts, or political posting.
Constitutional guarantees
- Article 50 directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
- Article 124 and Article 217 fix the manner of appointment and the tenure of Supreme Court and High Court judges, with removal only by a parliamentary address on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, which is the impeachment process used in the Justice V. Ramaswami episode and later motions.
- Salaries, privileges, and the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund, so the annual vote cannot starve the Court.
- Article 121 and Article 211 bar discussion in Parliament and in a State legislature on the conduct of a sitting judge except on a motion for removal.
- The collegium practice after the Second and Third Judges Cases, and the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) after the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, show that the Court treats appointment insulation as part of independence.
Limits that the comment must record
- Independence is not a licence for a closed collegium; the 2015 judgment itself asked for a Memorandum of Procedure and for more transparency.
- Delay in filling vacancies, in-house opacity, and the unused but heavy impeachment process are real stresses, yet they do not cancel the need for a constitutional guarantee.
- A comment that is fair therefore treats Articles 50, 121, 124, 211 and 217, and the failed NJAC amendment, as the democratic minimum, not as a finished reform of the appointments system.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD D[Democracy under Constitution] --> I[Independent courts] I --> A[Arts 124 and 217 tenure] I --> S[Arts 50 121 211] I --> N[NJAC 99th Amendment struck 2015] A --> R[Rights and federal limits enforced]
Conclusion
Constitutionally guaranteed independence is a prerequisite of democracy because only a secure court can enforce rights and limits against the majority of the day. India’s text supplies that security through appointment, tenure, money, and speech bars, even while appointments remain an unfinished public debate.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2023 · Q11). View answer →
-
Does impeachment make judges independent?
The high threshold of a parliamentary address on proved misbehaviour protects tenure. It is a safeguard, not a day-to-day disciplinary tool.
-
Did the 2015 case say the collegium cannot be improved?
No. The Court struck down the NJAC as designed, and still asked for a better, more transparent Memorandum of Procedure.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle. -
2024 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity. -
2023 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. -
2023 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. -
2023 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. -
2022 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the role of the Vice -Presidents of India as the chairman of the Rajyasabha. -
2022 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by ne Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. -
2022 · Q14 · GS II · 15 marks
Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Indian Constitution
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.