The judiciary’s actions have frequently countered attempts to undermine democratic principles, reaffirming its position as a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies.
Sanjay Pandey
The recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar questioning the involvement of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in executive appointments have sparked an intense constitutional debate. The issue revolves around the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in upholding democratic values. India’s Constitution, drafted with the intent of ensuring an independent judiciary, has established mechanisms to prevent executive overreach. However, Dhankhar’s statements raise pertinent questions regarding the judiciary’s autonomy and its influence over executive decisions.
The Indian Constitution envisions a clear demarcation between the executive, legislature, and judiciary to maintain checks and balances. Article 50 explicitly mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, ensuring that judicial processes remain free from political influence. The collegium system, developed through judicial precedent rather than explicit constitutional provision, governs the appointment of judges. This system, established by the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings, gives primacy to judicial recommendations over executive discretion in appointing judges. The rationale behind this framework is to safeguard judicial independence from political interference, thereby upholding the rule of law.
Vice President Dhankhar’s contention that the judiciary’s involvement in executive appointments creates a constitutional paradox challenges the existing interpretation of separation of powers. His remarks suggest that the judiciary has extended its influence beyond its intended mandate, encroaching upon executive functions. This assertion, however, disregards the historical context of judicial autonomy in India. The collegium system was a response to concerns over executive dominance in judicial appointments. Prior to its establishment, the executive had substantial authority over judicial selections, leading to fears of political patronage and bias. The Supreme Court, through its rulings in the Second and Third Judges cases, sought to rectify this imbalance by ensuring that judicial appointments remained within the judiciary’s domain.
Critics of the collegium system argue that it lacks transparency and accountability, as appointments are made through internal deliberations without external scrutiny. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), introduced in 2014 to replace the collegium, sought to address these concerns by incorporating executive participation in judicial selections. However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, citing concerns over judicial independence. This decision reaffirmed the judiciary’s stance that executive involvement in appointments could undermine its autonomy. Dhankhar’s call for reevaluating the judiciary’s role in appointments appears to revisit the NJAC debate, reigniting tensions between the executive and judiciary.
The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to a functioning democracy. The judiciary serves as the guardian of constitutional values, ensuring that laws and executive actions adhere to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Historical precedents demonstrate the judiciary’s critical role in protecting democratic institutions from executive overreach. Landmark rulings, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, established the doctrine of basic structure, preventing the government from altering the Constitution’s fundamental framework. Such interventions highlight the judiciary’s necessity in maintaining democratic stability.
The Vice President’s statements must be analyzed in light of the broader global discourse on judicial autonomy. In many democracies, judicial appointments involve varying degrees of executive participation. The United States follows a system where the President nominates Supreme Court justices, subject to Senate confirmation. While this model allows democratic accountability, it also exposes the judiciary to political maneuvering, as seen in highly contentious judicial nominations. India’s model, despite its criticisms, aims to insulate the judiciary from such political pressures, prioritizing judicial expertise over executive discretion.
Political parties have taken differing stances on this issue. Some argue that judicial appointments should incorporate a broader consultative process to enhance accountability, while others emphasize preserving the judiciary’s primacy to protect its independence. Electoral reforms have sought to strengthen democratic institutions by promoting transparency and fairness in governance. Measures such as electronic voting, financial disclosure requirements, and legal provisions against electoral malpractice reflect a broader commitment to democratic integrity. These reforms align with the judiciary’s role in ensuring free and fair elections, further underscoring its importance in governance.
The judiciary’s impact on democracy extends beyond appointments. Its proactive role in addressing electoral disputes, upholding fundamental rights, and interpreting constitutional provisions has reinforced public trust in democratic institutions. Judicial interventions in cases involving electoral malpractices, corruption, and executive accountability illustrate its significance in maintaining constitutional order. The judiciary’s actions have frequently countered attempts to undermine democratic principles, reaffirming its position as a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies.
At the Munich Security Conference 2025, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar defended India’s democratic resilience, highlighting the country’s ability to address socio-economic challenges within a democratic framework. His remarks countered narratives that democracy is ineffective in delivering tangible benefits. The judiciary’s role in upholding democratic values is integral to this resilience. By ensuring legal accountability, protecting fundamental rights, and maintaining electoral integrity, the judiciary contributes to a robust democratic system.
The controversy surrounding judicial appointments is not merely a procedural matter but a fundamental constitutional issue. The judiciary’s independence must be preserved to prevent executive overreach, yet the need for transparency and accountability in judicial selections cannot be ignored. While Dhankhar’s concerns about constitutional balance warrant discussion, any reform must prioritize judicial autonomy to uphold the Constitution’s core principles. The ongoing debate reflects the evolving nature of India’s democratic institutions, necessitating careful deliberation to ensure that constitutional governance remains intact. The resolution of this issue will shape the future of judicial-executive relations, influencing India’s democratic trajectory for years to come.
( Author, a seasoned bilingual journalist and Media Educator, is an expert on Jharkhand’s sociopolitical landscape.He can be reached at pandeysanjay945@gmail.com)
