Judiciary is symbolized to be the upholder of human rights ensuring ever citizen of its constitutional rights. Right to Constitutional Remedies, a fundamental right, states that every citizen of India can move a court of law in case of denial of its rights. This representation of courts as an institution of justice, free of discrimination and influence, seems to be withering.
The loss of trust is not due to incapability of judges to make right judgments but because of political interference. There exists a nexus between judiciary, executive and legislative, which leads to screwed outcomes, favoring the party. In such cases, private interests compromise social justice.
Indian Constitution gives judiciary a separate status of an independent body having dis-joint workings from executive and legislative. The main motive was to ensure that the judgments are made independent of any external factors
…show more content…
Such as, power to hold anyone under “contempt of court” for criticizing judicial system or judge is misused by many judges. Judges use this order to shut out criticisms against them, making it difficult for people to question their judgments. Difficulty in impeachment, transfer, etc. – Another right provided to ensure independent working is catalyzing corruption. It is nearly impossible to impeach a judge because of uncertain procedures laid by the Constitution. The Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, sets the procedure. The first step to remove a judge is to prove misbehavior or incapacity of the questioned judge; this has not been defined anywhere in the constitution. After being proven guilty, the motion would be laid in both houses and it would require the majority to pass the motion. Such a long and tedious process of impeachment usually fails because of the involvement of corrupt legislative/executive members. Hence, proving misbehavior is not enough to remove the alleged
As a result, the Democratic-Republicans began to distrust the judiciary even more. Jefferson felt that impeachment was the sole way to make the courts respond to the public. Congress eventually impeached and removed a district judge, John Pickering. The House of Representatives also voted to impeach Justice Samuel Chase, but the Senate voted in Chase’s favor. This decision was historic because it guaranteed the independence of the judiciary branch and therefore strengthened it.
In American Politics, impeachment is a legislature power to charge a public official for misconduct and remove such person from office if found guilty. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeaching, and makes Senate the sole court to try all impeachments. So far, no American Presidents have been removed from office as a result of impeachment. The impeachment process, according to Alexander Hamilton in the Federalists Papers, is regarded as an important tool in separation of powers to keep the executive branch in check. However, the process has been widely understood as a legal procedure, similar to a criminal prosecution.
This means that they can’t really be bribed. Document B talks about this when it says, “The judiciary, on contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society;” This is saying that the Judicial Branch has no control over the money or power of the government. For this reason there is really no way for the Judicial Branch to be bribed. This makes their decisions based actually on what they think and not what other people want them to think.
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
• In order to determine whether or not the executive privileges of the President should be recognized as legitimate in a court setting, it was necessary to identify how the ability to withhold information from judicial review may cause a disruption of due process. • Executive privilege was determined to not be absolute in nature, and therefore any material of interest to a court of law is fully subject to judicial review. • The President may still retain executive privileges, however, so long as they do not obstruct the judicial process and/or hinder the functioning capabilities of other branches of the Federal Government, in the interest of preserving checks and balances.
In the U.S Constitution, it states that if President is convicted of any treason, corruption, or any other high Crimes and transgressions they can be removed from office. However, there are many steps to being impeach. The first thing in order for the President to be impeach is when the situation of the President brings attention to the members of the House of Representatives. Next, they are handed over to the House Judiciary Committee to see if the situation is serious. If the situation is serious then the president would be presented to the U.S Senate to decide if he should be impeached.
A fair and unbiased court system is necessary for the legal system. The role of the court is to correct any injustice, not to compound it. When prejudice and corruption leak into the courts, what recourse do we have for eradicating them from society? Our judges must be stalwarts of integrity because the power to move our country forward or hold our country back often lies in their hands. Judge Persky had the power to bring justice to a victim, to help her and her family move forward.
Under Section 1 in Article III of the United States Constitution, it states “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” This means that Supreme Court Justices are allowed to hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from their position by impeachment. It is not directed stated, but it provides the ability for Justices to serve life term limits and not be required to resign after a
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.
The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education.
In addition to judicial selection methods, at the federal level, the president and senate get to appoint seats to judges, in which they will have for life. In my opinion, I think this selection method is good to some extent because I trust that the president and senate have good judgment when it comes to picking judges that will be independent, fair, and accountable. At the state level, electing judges varies from state to state. In
Time and Time Again Power Corrupts “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This quote by politician Lord Acton has a lot to do with The Crucibles. The Crucibles, a play written by Arthur Miller takes place during the Salem witch trials. In this play a lot more was happening than just the hanging of witches. There was also corruption of power and authority in the court, specifically by a judge named Danforth.
Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.
This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.
Malaysian judiciary refers to the Malaysian court system. It is an independent body separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. The role of courts is to ensure the law and order are followed, that justice is done, and criminals are punished. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice.