Leading Case Laws on Independence of the Judiciary
S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 365
This is a landmark case in India that pertains to the independence of the judiciary. The case was heard by a Bench of nine judges of the Supreme Court of India. The case was filed by a former judge of the Delhi High Court, Shambhu Prasad Gupta, who challenged the validity of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968, which provided for the impeachment of judges of the higher judiciary by the parliament.
The main question before the court was whether the act violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act did not violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the independence of the judiciary means “independence within limits” and that the judiciary has the power to protect its own independence and that of its members.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by the parliament. The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any law.
This case established the principle that the judiciary has the power to protect its own independence and that of its members and the principle of the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of the Constitution that cannot be taken away by any law. It is considered as one of the most important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441, also known as the Second Judges Case, is a landmark case in India that pertains to the independence of the judiciary. The case was heard by a Bench of nine judges of the Supreme Court of India. The case was filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, a body of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court, who challenged the validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005, which provided for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The main question before the court was whether the act violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act did violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the independence of the judiciary requires that the judiciary have a significant role in the appointment of judges, and that the judiciary be consulted in the appointment of judges.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by the parliament. The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any law.
This case established the principle of “collegium system” for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, which gives the judiciary a significant role in the appointment of judges, and that the judiciary should be consulted in the appointment of judges. This case is considered as one of the most important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence.
The main question before the court was whether the acts violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the acts did violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the acts would have the effect of diluting the judiciary’s role in the appointment of judges and thus would undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by the parliament. The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any law.
This case expanded on the “collegium system” established in the Second Judges Case and held that the judiciary has the final say in the appointment of judges, subject to the President and the Governor of a state being consulted. This case is considered as one of the most important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the role of judiciary in the appointment of judges.
The main question before the court was whether the dismissal of the state governments by the President of India under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution was constitutional. The court held that the dismissal of the state governments by the President of India under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution was unconstitutional.
The court held that the dismissal of the state governments by the President of India under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the dismissal of the state governments by the President of India under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution violated the principle of secularism. The court held that the dismissal of the state governments by the President of India under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution violated the principle of federalism.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary, the principle of secularism and the principle of federalism are basic structures of the Constitution and cannot be amended by the parliament. The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary, the principle of secularism and the principle of federalism are essential features of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any law.
This case established the principle of secularism and the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, and held that the judiciary has the power to review the actions of the executive and the legislature to ensure that they conform to the Constitution. This case is considered as one of the most important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence, secularism and federalism.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015
The main question before the court was whether the act violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act did violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act would have the effect of diluting the judiciary’s role in the appointment of judges, and thus would undermine the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the collegium system for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, which gives the judiciary a significant role in the appointment of judges, was a necessary aspect of the independence of the judiciary.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by the parliament. The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any law.
This case re-established the principle of “collegium system” for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, which gives the judiciary a significant role in the appointment of judges and that the judiciary should be consulted in the appointment of judges. This case
Nanjundappa (B.N.) vs State Of Mysore (1964)
This is also a landmark case in India that pertains to the independence of the judiciary. The case was heard by the Supreme court of India. The case was filed by a lawyer Nanjundappa, who challenged the validity of the Mysore High Court Judges (Protection) Act, 1963, which was passed by the government of Mysore state. The act provided for immunity to judges of the Mysore High Court from prosecution for any act done or purporting to be done in the discharge of their judicial duties.
The main question before the court was whether the act violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act did violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the act of providing immunity to the judges of the High court, would have the effect of diluting the accountability of the judiciary and thus would undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The court also held that the independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution and it cannot be taken away by any law and that the judiciary should be accountable for their actions.
This case is considered as one of the most important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence and accountability of the judiciary. It is considered as a significant case in India, which ensures that the judiciary is accountable for their actions and that the citizens have a right to seek redressal for any wrongs committed by the judiciary.
The main question before the court was whether the High Court’s order violated the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the High Court’s order did not violate the principle of the independence of the judiciary. The court held that the order was a valid exercise of the court’s judicial power and that the company had failed to provide evidence to support its claim that the order was influenced by extraneous considerations.
The court also held that the principle of the independence of the judiciary requires that the judiciary be free from external influence, but it does not protect the judiciary from being held accountable for its decisions.
This case is considered as one of the important case in India that reinforced the principle of judicial independence and accountability of the judiciary and that the judiciary should be free from external influence but it does not protect the judiciary from being held accountable for its decisions.