The Indian judiciary is often described as the sentinel on the qui vive, an institution tasked with safeguarding the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law prevails over the rule of men. As one of the three organs of the State, the judiciary stands apart because it acts not only as an interpreter of laws but also as the ultimate protector of rights, liberties, and constitutional values. Its roots go deep into the colonial era, but its wings have spread widely to protect a modern, democratic polity.
India’s judicial system is based on the common law tradition inherited from British rule, but over time it has developed a unique identity suited to India’s social, economic, and political realities. The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, establishes an integrated judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts in the States and subordinate courts at the district and lower levels. This unified structure ensures coherence and consistency in the interpretation of laws throughout the vast and diverse country.
The Supreme Court occupies a place of pre-eminence. It is not merely a court of law but also a court of justice and conscience. Article 124 of the Constitution provides for its establishment, composition, and powers. The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction includes disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves, while its appellate jurisdiction allows it to hear appeals on constitutional, civil, and criminal matters from High Courts. Most significantly, under Article 32, any citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, making it the guardian and enforcer of civil liberties.
High Courts, established under Articles 214 to 231, function as the highest courts at the State level. They possess original jurisdiction in certain matters, such as writs under Article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Their supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts ensures the integrity and efficiency of the lower judiciary. The district and subordinate courts form the backbone of the system, dealing with the bulk of litigation and directly touching the lives of ordinary citizens.
Over the years, the Indian judiciary has evolved remarkably. Its role expanded from a traditional adjudicator to an active participant in governance through the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). In the late 1970s and 1980s, courts began entertaining petitions from public-spirited individuals and groups on behalf of the disadvantaged and marginalised. This era marked the judiciary’s transition from a passive umpire to an activist institution that read social justice into the Constitution’s text. Landmark PILs opened courtroom doors for bonded labourers, pavement dwellers, prisoners, and environmental protection groups, among others.
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of a fair justice system. The framers of the Constitution ensured several safeguards to protect this independence. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed by a complex process of impeachment by Parliament on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Their salaries and service conditions are protected by the Constitution, insulating them from executive interference. Over time, the judiciary itself evolved procedures like the collegium system for appointments and transfers, aimed at minimising executive control over judicial appointments, though not without controversy.
However, with great power comes greater responsibility. Critics argue that the judiciary’s expansion into the domains of policy-making and governance sometimes breaches the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Instances where courts have laid down detailed policies for pollution control, administrative reforms, or educational reservations have sparked debates on judicial overreach. While judicial activism has often filled gaps left by an inactive executive or legislature, it also raises questions about democratic legitimacy and accountability.
Another challenge confronting the judiciary is the pendency of cases. With over four crore cases pending across courts, delay in the delivery of justice has become endemic. The saying “justice delayed is justice denied” rings painfully true for millions of litigants. Reasons for backlog include inadequate judge strength, procedural complexities, frequent adjournments, and lack of modern infrastructure. Various commissions and reports have recommended measures such as increasing the number of judges, strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and leveraging technology for case management. The recent push towards digitisation and virtual hearings, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, shows promise but needs to be sustained and expanded.
Despite challenges, the Indian judiciary has time and again demonstrated remarkable resilience. Its pronouncements have shaped the trajectory of India’s democracy. From upholding the Basic Structure Doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, to decriminalising homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the courts have championed progressive values. They have balanced individual rights with societal interests, navigated complex federal disputes, and acted as a check on executive arbitrariness.
The judiciary’s relationship with other organs of the State is delicate and dynamic. Tensions occasionally flare up, especially over appointments and the scope of judicial review. However, the dialogue among the three organs reflects the robust checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution’s framers. For a vibrant democracy, no single organ should overshadow the others, and healthy friction is sometimes essential to prevent abuse of power.
An independent judiciary is vital not just for dispute resolution but for instilling public confidence in the rule of law. For the common citizen, the courts remain a beacon of hope against unlawful detentions, arbitrary state action, and the might of powerful interests. Legal aid initiatives, pro bono work, and the gradual embrace of technology can help make the system more accessible to those on society’s margins.
Looking ahead, the judiciary’s role will only grow more complex as India navigates new challenges posed by technology, privacy, environmental crises, and evolving notions of rights. Continuous reforms, transparent appointments, greater diversity on the bench, and accountability mechanisms can help strengthen this institution further. Judges and lawyers alike must uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity to retain the public’s trust.
In the end, the judiciary’s real strength lies not just in its constitutional powers but in the faith reposed in it by the people. It is this trust that transforms courts from mere brick-and-mortar buildings into temples of justice. As India marches forward, the judiciary must balance activism with restraint, tradition with innovation, and justice with equity — ever alive to its profound duty as the final sentinel of freedom and constitutional morality.