Judiciary

Why this chapter matters for UPSC: The judiciary is a GS2 fixture. Mains has asked for the reasons for the growth of PIL and whether the Supreme Court is "the world's most powerful judiciary" (2024), whether constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is "a prerequisite of democracy" (2023), the Supreme Court's constitutionalisation of environmental problems (2022), judicial legislation against the separation of powers (2020), tribunals and the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (2018), the NJAC judgment (2017), Coelho and judicial review as a basic feature (2016), the basic structure doctrine as judicial proactivity (2014) and the Court's check on Parliament's amending power (2013). NCERT's chapter supplies the frame for all of them: independence means the other organs "must not restrain the functioning of the judiciary" and judges work "without fear or favour", yet independence "does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability"; the Supreme Court is "one of the very powerful courts in the world" but "functions within the limitations imposed by the Constitution"; PIL "has democratised the judicial system" and also "blurred the line of distinction" between the organs; and Kesavananda "is perhaps the best example of how judiciary uses its power to interpret the Constitution." The chapter is unchanged in the rationalised Reprint 2026-27. This page follows NCERT's order, quotes the Articles where the exam turns on a word, and dates every figure.

🧠 First Principles — Read This First

Courts do political work. "Many times, courts are seen only as arbitrators in disputes between individuals or private parties. But judiciary performs some political functions also." Disputes between individuals, groups and government "must be settled by an independent body in accordance with the principle of rule of law", which "implies that all individuals, rich and poor, men or women, forward or backward castes, are subjected to the same law." The judiciary's "principal role" is "to protect rule of law and ensure supremacy of law"; it "ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship."

Independence, defined three ways and bounded once. The executive and legislature "must not restrain the functioning of the judiciary in such a way that it is unable to do justice"; they "should not interfere with the decision of the judiciary"; judges "must be able to perform their functions without fear or favour." The boundary: the judiciary "is accountable to the Constitution, to the democratic traditions and to the people of the country." Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar's box (23 November 1949) carries the same warning: "The doctrine of independence is not to be raised to the level of a dogma so as to enable the judiciary to function as a kind of super-legislature or super-executive."

Limited separation, delicate balance. "The Parliament is supreme in making laws and amending the Constitution, the executive is supreme in implementing them while the judiciary is supreme in settling disputes and deciding whether the laws that have been made are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution." Conflict between them "has remained a recurrent theme in Indian politics", and "democracy hinges on the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the Parliament."

PART 1 — Quick Reference

How the Constitution Secures Independence (NCERT's list, with the Articles)

The arithmetic of Articles 124(4) and 61 differs: Article 61(2)(b) requires two-thirds of the total membership, a stricter test with no "present and voting" limb.

Strength, Courts, Vacancies (dated)

The Supreme Court's Jurisdiction (NCERT's chart, with the Articles)

NCERT prints Articles 137 and 144 as boxes. Two qualifications on NCERT's wording: the review power is statutory and rule-bound, not inherent; and the advisory reference may be declined: in Ismail Faruqui (24 October 1994) the Court returned the Ayodhya reference "respectfully, unanswered". The presidential-election reference is In re Presidential Poll (5 June 1974, seven judges).

The Parliament-Judiciary Arc (NCERT's recapitulation, with benches and dates)

Appointments: the Judges Cases

NCERT's summary: "in matters of appointment the decision of the group of senior judges of the Supreme Court carries greater weight", and "the Supreme Court and the Council of Ministers play an important role." The 2015 judgment did not pronounce the collegium's text constitutional; it struck the alternative and acknowledged that the system needed improvement.

PART 2 — Concepts & Narrative

Why Do We Need an Independent Judiciary?

NCERT's definition and the Constitution's devices are tabulated above. Two further points from its text. "Political opinions of the person or his/her political loyalty should not be the criteria for appointments." And contempt: "The actions and decisions of the judges are immune from personal criticisms... This authority of the court is seen as an effective protection to the judges from unfair criticism." The margin student's worry ("you can criticise the Prime Minister or even the President, but not the judges!") is left for the class debate on what constrains judges: the Constitution, precedent, public opinion, the media, time and staff, "fear of action by executive".

Appointment of judges. "The appointment of judges has never been free from political controversy. It is part of the political process. It makes a difference who serves in the Supreme Court and High Court." The seniority convention for the Chief Justice "was however broken twice. In 1973 A.N. Ray was appointed as CJI superseding three senior Judges. Again, Justice M.H. Beg was appointed superseding Justice H.R. Khanna (1975)." Ray's appointment followed Kesavananda by a day (S.M. Sikri retired on 25 April 1973); Beg's supersession of Khanna, the ADM Jabalpur dissenter, came when Ray retired on 28 January 1977, so NCERT's "1975" is the year of the Emergency, not of the appointment. For other judges, "the President after 'consulting' the CJI... in effect, meant that the final decisions in matters of appointment rested with the Council of Ministers", until the question "came up before the Supreme Court again and again between 1982 and 1998" and produced "the principle of collegiality" (the three Judges Cases in the table). The margin asks whether the judiciary is "a self-appointing body"; the NJAC episode is Parliament's answer and the Court's reply.

Removal of judges. "A judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. A motion containing the charges against the judge must be approved by special majority in both Houses"; "while in making appointments, the executive plays a crucial role; the legislature has the powers of removal. This has ensured both balance of power and independence of the judiciary." NCERT's box: "In 1991 the first-ever motion to remove a Supreme Court Justice was signed by 108 members of Parliament"; a 1992 inquiry committee of judges found Justice V. Ramaswami "guilty of wilful and gross misuses of office... and moral turpitude" as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court; yet "the motion recommending his removal got the required two-thirds majority among the members who were present and voting, but the Congress party abstained from voting", so it "could not get the support of one-half of the total strength of the House." The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs the steps: notice signed by not less than 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members (s. 3(1)); a committee of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist (s. 3(2)); a finding of guilt takes the motion to the House, a finding of no misbehaviour ends it (s. 6). NCERT's "only one case" still holds for Supreme Court judges; High Court judges have since faced motions, most recently Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, whose inquiry committee handed its report to the Speaker on 18 May 2026 after he had resigned in April (press reports); Parliament's disposal of the motion is not on record at the time of writing.

Structure of the Judiciary

"The Constitution of India provides for a single integrated judicial system... unlike some other federal countries of the world, India does not have separate State courts." The pyramid: the Supreme Court, whose decisions "are binding on all courts" and which "can transfer Judges of High Courts" (Article 222, on the President's order after consulting the Chief Justice), "move cases from any court to itself" and "transfer cases from one High Court to another" (Article 139A); High Courts, which hear appeals, issue writs, and exercise "superintendence and control over courts below" (Article 227); District Courts, which decide "cases involving serious criminal offences" (district judges appointed by the Governor "in consultation with the High Court", Article 233(1)); and subordinate courts.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The chart and Articles are in Part 1. NCERT's explanation of original jurisdiction: it "establishes it as an umpire in all disputes regarding federal matters... In this capacity, the Supreme Court not just settles disputes but also interprets the powers of Union and State government." Writ jurisdiction gives the aggrieved "the choice of either approaching the High Court or approaching the Supreme Court directly", and through writs "the Court can give orders to the executive to act or not to act in a particular way". Appellate jurisdiction means the Court "will reconsider the case and the legal issues involved in it", and may "give new interpretation of the provision involved"; "the Supreme Court holds the powers to decide whether to admit appeals even when appeal is not allowed by the High Court" (Article 136). Advisory jurisdiction has a two-fold utility: "it allows the government to seek legal opinion on a matter of importance before taking action on it", and "the government can make suitable changes in its action or legislations." The margin's joke, "giving advice is optional and accepting that advice is also optional", is Article 143(1)'s two "may"s. The 2025 reference on timelines for assent (chapter 4) is the latest instance of the Court answering; Faruqui (1994) the instance of its declining.

Judicial Activism

"The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL)." Before 1979 "an individual can approach the courts only if he/she has been personally aggrieved"; "In 1979, the Court set the trend when it decided to hear a case where the case was filed not by the aggrieved persons but by others on their behalf." NCERT's early PILs: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), prompted by newspaper reports on undertrials "who had spent long years in jail, longer than what they would have spent if they had been punished", "one of the early Public Interest Litigations" (NCERT does not call it the first); and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), a Tihar inmate's "scribbled piece of paper" to Justice Krishna Iyer, converted into a petition, "though later on, the Court abandoned the practice of considering letters." Courts "began considering many cases merely on the basis of newspaper reports and postal complaints", hence "judicial activism".

What PIL changed. "Through the PIL, the court has expanded the idea of rights. Clean air, unpolluted water, decent living, etc., are rights for the entire society" (GS2 2022's "constitutionalization of environmental problems"). It opened the courts to "those sections who cannot easily approach the courts" by letting "public spirited citizens, social organisations and lawyers" file for them. Bhagwati J in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (decided 16 December 1983, reported 1984; NCERT prints 1984): "the problems of the poor... are qualitatively different from those which have hitherto occupied the attention of the Court... If we blindly follow the adversarial procedure in their case, they would never be able to enforce their fundamental rights." Activism "has democratised the judicial system", "forced executive accountability", and "made an attempt to make the electoral system much more free and fair": "the court asked candidates contesting elections to file affidavits indicating their assets and income along with educational qualifications" (chapter 3). Cases on "the blinding of the jail inmates by the police, inhuman working conditions in stone quarries, sexual exploitation of children" made the right against exploitation "really meaningful for the poor". South Africa's constitution "has incorporated public interest litigation in its bill of rights."

Judiciary and Rights

Two remedies: writs under Article 32 (High Courts under Article 226), and declaring a law "unconstitutional and therefore non-operational (article 13)". Together they "establish the Supreme Court as the protector of fundamental rights of the citizen on the one hand and interpreter of Constitution on the other." Judicial review "means the power of the Supreme Court (or High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law"; "The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, the fact that India has a written constitution and the Supreme Court can strike down a law that goes against fundamental rights, implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review." Article 13 itself does not name a court. Review also polices federalism: "if a law is inconsistent with the distribution of powers laid down by the Constitution", a State may move the Court; "The review power extends to the laws passed by State legislatures also." The margin's "I'd rather become a judge! Then, I won't have to worry about elections and public support, and can still have really lots of power" is NCERT's prompt for the accountability question.

Judiciary and Parliament

The Court "has been active in seeking to prevent subversion of the Constitution through political practice": "areas that were considered beyond the scope of judicial review such as powers of the President and Governor were brought under the purview of the courts" (Bommai, Article 356; the Governor-assent cases, chapter 4), and it directed the CBI "in the hawala case, the Narasimha Rao case, illegal allotment of petrol pumps case". The constitutional design is "a delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances."

The property-and-amendment conflict. "Immediately after the implementation of the Constitution began, a controversy arose over the Parliament's power to restrict right to property" for land reform. "The Court held that the Parliament cannot thus restrict fundamental rights. The Parliament then tried to amend the Constitution. But the Court said that even through an amendment, a fundamental right cannot be abridged" (Golak Nath, 1967). NCERT's four issues: the scope of private property; of Parliament's power "to curtail, abridge or abrogate fundamental rights"; of its power to amend; and whether it may "abridge fundamental rights while enforcing directive principles". "During the period 1967 and 1973, this controversy became very serious": land reform, preventive detention, reservations, acquisition and compensation. Then Kesavananda (1973): basic structure; property not part of it; the Court the judge of what is. "This ruling has changed the nature of conflicts between the legislature and the judiciary", and the 44th Amendment's removal of property from Part III (1979) "also helped". The dates and benches of the whole chain are in Part 1; GS2 2013 and 2014 ask for exactly this arc, and chapter 9 carries the amendments.

Conclusion

"In spite of the tensions that arose from time to time between the judiciary and the executive and the legislature, the prestige of the judiciary has increased considerably. At the same time, there are many more expectations from the judiciary. Ordinary citizens also wonder how it is possible for many people to get easy acquittals and how witnesses change their testimonies to suit the wealthy and the mighty." The judiciary "is a very powerful institution... also known for its independence", and "both institutions have to function within the limitations set by the Constitution."

PART 3 — UPSC Integration

Applying the Chapter

1. Independence answers list NCERT's devices with Articles and then its limit: accountability "to the Constitution, to the democratic traditions and to the people."
2. Appointments answers run 1981-1993-1998-2015 with bench sizes, and NCERT's honest sentence that appointment "is part of the political process".
3. PIL answers pair NCERT's three gains (democratisation, executive accountability, electoral reform) with its three costs (overburdening, blurred lines, strained balance).
4. Judicial review answers begin with "nowhere mentioned" and build it from Articles 13, 32, 226 and 131, then the federal limb.
5. Parliament-judiciary answers use NCERT's four issues of 1950-73 and its unresolved list (privilege, discipline, Article 121, instructions to legislatures).

Exam Strategy

• Prelims: Articles 121, 124(2)-(4) and (7), 125, 129, 131 and its proviso, 132-134, 136(2), 137, 141-144, 202(3)(d), 214, 220-222, 226-227, 231, 233; the strength of 38 and the 1 May 2026 vacancy figures; benches and dates in the two tables.
• Mains: quote NCERT's definition of independence and Alladi's warning; cite Bandhua with its date; keep the Judges Cases and the arc as numbered sequences.
• Confused pairs: 124(4) vs 61 arithmetic; 143(1) "may" vs 143(2) "shall"; Article 32 (Part III only) vs 226 ("any other purpose"); 136 special leave vs 132-134 certificate appeals; Consolidated Fund of India vs of the State for High Court salaries; Sunil Batra (1980) vs Hussainara Khatoon (1979).
• Cross-reading: chapter 2 (Article 32 as the "heart and soul" in Ambedkar's words of 9 December 1948, "the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it"), chapter 4 (Governor-assent reference, 2025), chapter 9 (amendments; Kesavananda).

Practice Questions

NCERT's exercises, worked

1. Odd ones out: "Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court" (Article 222 allows transfer); the other three are devices of independence (though Parliament's absence from appointment coexists with its power of removal).
2. Independence and accountability: no; NCERT: accountable "to the Constitution, to the democratic traditions and to the people"; removal, review of its own judgments, and public reasoning are the forms.
3. Provisions: the eight-row table in Part 1.
4. Dahanu (2005): a pollution PIL; beneficiaries the chikoo growers; petitioners the farmers (through environmental groups); the company's arguments (acquisition in 2003, schedules submitted) against the farmers' (crop loss since 1990, orders disobeyed since 2002).
5. CNG (2001): Union and Delhi governments; the Court as enforcer of its own pollution orders and arbiter of deadlines; policy (fuel), legislation (standards), implementation (bus conversion), interpretation (scope of the order).
6. Ecuador: India differs on precedent (Article 141 binds all courts; High Court rulings bind subordinate courts) and on reasoned judgments.
7. Jurisdictions: PoK citizenship, advisory; Cauvery, original (Article 131, subject to Article 262's bar for water disputes under the 1956 Act, so in practice the tribunal route); dam-site eviction, appellate.
8. PIL and the poor: standing relaxed; letters as petitions; non-adversarial inquiry (Bandhua); the exploitation cases.
9. Activism and conflict: yes, where courts direct policy (CNG, affidavits, CBI); NCERT's "strains" paragraph.
10. Activism and rights: through Article 21's expansion (clean air, water, livelihood) and access for those who could not sue.

Practice (UPSC-pattern, not past papers)

11. "Independence of the judiciary does not imply arbitrariness or absence of accountability." Set out the constitutional devices that secure independence and the mechanisms that secure accountability. (GS2, 15 marks)
12. Trace how the meaning of "consultation" in Article 124(2) changed between 1981 and 2015, and assess whether the NJAC judgment left the question settled. (GS2, 15 marks)
13. Distinguish the original, advisory and writ jurisdictions of the Supreme Court, with the wording of the Articles that create each. (GS2, 10 marks)
14. "The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution." From where, then, does the Supreme Court derive it, and how far does it reach? (GS2, 10 marks)

📦 Revision Capsule

Sources

• NCERT, Indian Constitution at Work (Class XI), ch. 6 "Judiciary", Reprint 2026-27: ncert.nic.in PDF; whole book, Wayback copy of 27 September 2026.
• The Constitution of India, as on 11 November 2025 (Arts. 13, 32, 50, 61, 112, 121-147, 202, 211-237): Legislative Department PDF.
• Constituent Assembly Debates: 9 December 1948 (Ambedkar on Article 32), 23 November 1949 (Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar).
• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 128 of 2026), text and passage dates: PRS Legislative Research; Akashvani, Rajya Sabha returns the Bill, 5 August 2026.
• Department of Justice, Sanctioned strength, working strength and vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts, as on 1 May 2026: doj.gov.in PDF.
• Supreme Court of India, Former Chief Justices of India (terms of Sikri, Ray and Beg).
• Judgments on Indian Kanoon: Shankari Prasad (1951); Sajjan Singh (1964); Golak Nath (1967); Kesavananda Bharati (1973); In re Presidential Poll (1974); Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975); ADM Jabalpur (1976); Maneka Gandhi (1978); Minerva Mills (1980); S.P. Gupta (1981); Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1983); K. Veeraswami (1991) (Judges (Inquiry) Act summarised); Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. (1993); Ismail Faruqui (1994); L. Chandra Kumar (1997); Special Reference No. 1 of 1998; I.R. Coelho (2007); Union of India v. Shri Kant Sharma (2015) (AFT Act ss. 30-31); NJAC judgment (2015); Puttaswamy (2017).