Why Do We Have Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is based on the freedom of the judiciary from the interference by the two by the two other branches of government: the executive and legislature, in its activities, as well as freedom from pressure exerted by the media or public opinion. Judicial neutrality is the absence of bias in the judiciary for example; religious, social, gender, political or racial bias. UK judges are generally seen to possess both independent and neutral qualities. They are independent and neutral to a large extent as the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 has increased their independence and existing measures such as security of their job and salary, as well as sub judice rule, the growth of judicial review and increased European influence maintains existing independence. Neutrality is increasing the judiciary as its social representation is improving and the biased attitudes of judges towards national security have been changing. However independence and neutrality is still limited as there have been biased judgements against certain social groups, biased judgments in favour of national

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

Judicial independence is a concept of constitutional law that requires the judiciary o be kept away from all other arms of the government. It requires that the judiciary be free from influence from the other arms of the government and any private individuals. It is vital for the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial accountability is a principle that brings the concept of keeping the judiciary under scrutiny. It requires that the judiciary and judicial officers be held accountable for their actions while in office (Seibert-Fohr & Muller 2012, p.10). This essay is aimed at discussing these two principles and assess whether the change in the Australian judicial appointments process would enhance judicial independence and judicial accountability with a view of making recommendations where changes are necessary.

The United States judicial branch was created by the founding fathers to help protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the citizens. Protection is achieved by the judicial branches’ power to approve the constitutionality and interpretation of laws. By interpreting the laws and constitutionality the judicial branch is exercising their power of judicial review. When exercising the power of judicial review judges either choose a role of judicial activism or a role of judicial restraint. This paper will include the debate of whether judges in the United States should be activists or restrained when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

Unlike congress where laws are passed under their influence, the court upholds laws or repeals laws based on constitutional interpretation. These forms of interpretation are applied with both judicial independence, and judicial impartiality. Judicial independence essentially refers to a principle that binds the courts and judges to the law and that their holdings and decision’s should be made without any political and governmental influences (Dammer, H., & Albanese, J. p.159). The Supreme Court, although chosen on a political spectrum, does practice such forms of independence. Such as the case with current chief justice John Roberts, who appointed by George W. Bush a conservative republican, voted for Obamacare’s constitutional validity, and was the deciding swing vote in the case (Tribe, L. H., & Matz, J. 2014). Judicial impartiality is closely related to judicial independence, however it notes that all parties in court be treated as equals (Dammer, H., & Albanese, J. p.159). In essence, while lower courts judges and prosecutors have been known to favor each

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

1. Judicial autonomy is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be fair and not subject to influence from the other branches of government or from private or political interests. In most cases, judicial independence is secured by giving judges long, and sometimes lifetime, tenure and making them not easily removable. It means freedom from external authority. Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy.

I think that independent judiciary is the most important guiding principle in limiting government power because separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that no branch can be a lot more powerful than another. This is also important because a judiciary needs to be free from the pressure and influences of the other two branches in order to make critical decisions. Additionally this way the public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. Also this way a president can’t just put a law in place because it has to be passed by the branches of government including the judicial branch and they can decide if it’s unconstitutional. Independence is so important because they can change and set

The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.

An independent judiciary is necessary for a free society and a constituent democracy. It ensures the rule of law and realization of human rights and also prosperity and stability of the society. The independence of the judiciary is normally assures through the Constitution but it may also be assured through legislations, conventions and other suitable norms and practices. Following the constitution of United States, almost all constitutions lay down at least the foundation if not the entire edifices of an independent judiciary. The constitutions or the foundational laws on judiciary are however, only the starting point in the process of securing judicial independence. Ultimately the independence of the

The above mentioned aspects of the judiciary are effective in upholding the law. Independent judiciary armed with such powers is important for sustaining rule of law. In reality, there are certain aspects of our judiciary which interferes with sustainability of rule of law. The judiciary is a separate body and their accountability is limited, the judges might start to act above the law and there are not many effective checks on the judiciary. The idea of establishing National Judicial Council to check the activities of the judiciary has been discussed for a long time but no progress has been made yet.4

Judicial independence has been universally regarded as a basis for the rule of law. My research will address one main question related to the effect of judicial independence. Did judicial independence cause GDP growth after the 2008 recession? Political scientists and law scholars have long linked judicial independence with GDP growth. However, factors such as a global recession have been largely ignored to support this notion. I propose that GDP growth will be positively influenced by judicial independence.

Judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy and for apposite working its independence is a must. Independence includes mode of appointment of judges. When collegium system prevailed it was a unique system. This was because the executive was not given the power to decide appointment of judges, the opinion of the Chief Justice was