न्यायपालिका (The Judiciary)

1. Security of Tenure: Judges of the Supreme Court hold office until age 65 (High Courts until 62) and cannot be removed arbitrarily by executive decree.
   2. Rigorous Impeachment Procedure (Article 124(4)): A judge can be removed only by an address presented to the President passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament (majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting) on proven misbehavior or incapacity.
   3. Salaries Charged on Consolidated Fund: Judicial salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses are charged directly on the Consolidated Fund of India and cannot be voted on or reduced by Parliament.
   4. Immunity from Parliamentary Debate (Article 121): The judicial conduct of judges while discharging their duties cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures.

• The Collegium System: A unique judicial appointments mechanism established through Supreme Court rulings (Second and Third Judges Cases in 1993 and 1998). It consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, who evaluate and recommend appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Why NCBSE Was Struck Down (2015): In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Amendment creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NCBSE) containing the Law Minister and civil society members. In October 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NCBSE, ruling that giving executive politicians a direct veto over judicial selection violates the "Independence of the Judiciary", which is an inviolable Basic Structure of the Constitution.

1. Original Jurisdiction (Article 131): Exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes that originate directly in the Supreme Court, specifically federal disputes: (a) between the Centre and one or more States, or (b) between two or more States.
   2. Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): Power to issue prerogative writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.) directly for the enforcement of citizen Fundamental Rights.
   3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal, hearing appeals from High Courts across constitutional interpretation, civil cases, criminal convictions (death penalty), and Special Leave Petitions (Art 136).
   4. Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143): The President can refer any important legal or factual public question to the Supreme Court for its formal legal opinion.

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) / Social Action Litigation: Pioneered around 1979 by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer to make the judicial system accessible to impoverished and marginalized masses.
• Relaxation of Locus Standi: Under classical legal doctrine (locus standi), only the individual whose personal legal rights were directly violated could file a petition. The Supreme Court discarded this restriction, ruling that any public-spirited individual, social activist, journalist, or NGO could petition the court on behalf of victims who, due to poverty, ignorance, or disability, could not approach the court themselves.
• The Court even accepted simple letters or newspaper reports as writ petitions, revolutionizing prison reforms, banning bonded labor, and enforcing environmental protection.

• The Case: Decided on 24 April 1973 by the largest constitutional bench in Indian history (13 judges) by a narrow 7:6 majority.
• The Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court resolved the long conflict between Parliament and the Judiciary over constitutional amendments under Article 368:
1. The Court ruled that Parliament has wide, legitimate powers to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. The Limitation: However, Parliament cannot use its amending power to alter, damage, emasculate, or destroy the "Basic Structure" or foundational core of the Constitution.
3. Basic features include the Supremacy of the Constitution, Republican and Democratic form of government, Secularism, Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Judicial Review.

• Judicial Review: The constitutional power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the legal and constitutional validity of any legislation enacted by Parliament or State Assemblies, or any administrative executive order issued by the government.
• Check on Overreach: If the court finds that a statute or government order violates any provision of the Constitution, infringes upon Fundamental Rights, or damages the Basic Structure, the judiciary declares the law ultra vires (unconstitutional and void), rendering it completely unenforceable.

While Judicial Activism through PIL has protected human rights and cleaned up cities, critics point to serious concerns:
1. Judicial Overreach: Courts frequently cross the boundary of separation of powers, entering the policy domain of the Executive and Legislature (e.g., managing vehicular pollution, directing police reforms, or canceling commercial licenses).
2. Lack of Expertise & Accountability: Judges are not trained economists or public health administrators; their sweeping orders can create unintended economic chaos, yet unlike elected politicians, judges cannot be held accountable at the ballot box.
3. Severe Case Backlog: Entertaining thousands of frivolous PILs chokes court dockets, delaying ordinary criminal trials for decades.

• Single Integrated Judiciary (India): India has a unified judicial hierarchy. At the apex sits the Supreme Court of India, below which operate the High Courts in each state, and beneath them operate the Subordinate District Courts. High Courts enforce both Central and State laws, and verdicts of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts across the territory of India.
• Contrast with United States: The US has a dual judicial system: Federal courts enforce exclusively federal laws enacted by the US Congress, while separate State courts enforce laws passed by state legislatures, with state supreme courts being final on state matters.