The Role of Judges in India: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis

Importance of Judiciary in a Democracy The judiciary holds a central position in the democratic framework of India, acting as both the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of individual liberties. Its role is not merely to adjudicate disputes but to uphold the values of justice, equality, and rule of law that are enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary serves as a bulwark against the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive and the legislature, ensuring that all actions conform to constitutional mandates.

In a country as diverse and complex as India, with multiple religions, languages, and social strata, the judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining societal balance and promoting inclusivity. It resolves conflicts, checks governmental overreach, and interprets laws in a manner that aligns with constitutional morality. Landmark rulings by the judiciary have expanded the ambit of fundamental rights and infused life into the Directive Principles of State Policy. For example, through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the courts have addressed systemic issues such as bonded labor, environmental degradation, and gender justice, thus serving as a tool for social transformation.

Moreover, the independence of the judiciary ensures that it remains insulated from political and economic pressures. This independence is critical for upholding the faith of the people in the justice delivery system. When citizens view the judiciary as a neutral and unbiased arbiter, it strengthens the rule of law and democratic governance.

In essence, the judiciary is not just a dispute resolution mechanism but the guardian of constitutional ethos and a catalyst for social justice. It ensures that justice is not just done but seen to be done, thereby reinforcing the ideals of democracy in the Indian context.

Constitutional Framework of Judiciary in India:

The Indian Constitution provides for an integrated and independent judicial system. The architects of the Constitution recognized that the judiciary must be insulated from legislative and executive interference to discharge its functions effectively. As such, the Constitution incorporates elaborate provisions for the structure, powers, and independence of the judiciary.

Part V (Articles 124 to 147) deals with the Supreme Court, the apex judicial authority, while Part VI (Articles 214 to 231) governs the High Courts. These articles define the jurisdiction, powers, and functioning of the courts at the national and state levels, ensuring a comprehensive legal framework.

The power of judicial review, enshrined in Article 13, empowers courts to strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights. This power serves as a safeguard against legislative and executive excesses. Article 32, described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Similarly, Article 226 vests the High Courts with the authority to issue writs not only for fundamental rights but also for any other purpose.

The binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 ensures legal uniformity across the country. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for “complete justice” in any case before it. These provisions, coupled with the doctrine of separation of powers, form the constitutional backbone of the Indian judiciary.

Importantly, the judiciary has interpreted these provisions expansively to uphold the spirit of the Constitution. The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a prime example. This doctrine restricts Parliament from altering the core features of the Constitution, thereby cementing the judiciary’s role as its ultimate guardian.

In conclusion, the constitutional framework not only defines the composition and functions of the judiciary but also guarantees its independence, enabling it to fulfill its constitutional mandate with impartiality and integrity.

Hierarchical Structure of Indian Courts:

The Indian judiciary follows a unitary and integrated hierarchical structure that functions uniformly across the country, ensuring legal coherence and accessibility. This structure was influenced by the British system and is designed to accommodate the needs of a vast and diverse population. The hierarchy comprises the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts at the state level, and various subordinate courts below them.

• Supreme Court of India: Established under Article 124, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and constitutional interpretation. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and up to 33 other judges. The Court has multiple jurisdictions:

• Original Jurisdiction: Article 131 allows the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Centre and States.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: Articles 132–136 provide for appeals in civil, criminal, and constitutional matters.
• Advisory Jurisdiction: Article 143 enables the President to seek legal advice from the Court.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Under Article 32, the Court enforces Fundamental Rights.
• Special Leave to Appeal: Article 136 empowers the Court to grant special leave against any judgment of any court in India.

The Supreme Court is also the guardian of the Constitution and exercises the power of judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws.

• High Courts: Each state (or a group of states/UTs) has a High Court as the highest judicial body within its jurisdiction. Articles 214–231 govern their structure and powers. High Courts have:

• Original Jurisdiction: In civil and criminal cases under certain circumstances.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: In appeals from lower courts.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Under Article 226, wider than the Supreme Court’s under Article 32, as it covers not just Fundamental Rights but also other legal rights.

High Courts also supervise and control subordinate courts (Article 227), ensuring uniform judicial practices within their jurisdictions.

• Subordinate Courts: These include District and Sessions Courts, Civil Courts, Family Courts, and Magistrate Courts. Governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), and respective state laws, these courts form the foundation of the judiciary.

• District Judge: Head of the civil judiciary in a district.
• Sessions Judge: Handles criminal cases.
• Judicial Magistrates: Try criminal cases of lesser gravity.

These courts play a vital role in delivering justice at the grassroots. For a majority of citizens, subordinate courts are the primary point of interaction with the judiciary.

Appointment, Tenure, and Removal of Judges:

A transparent, merit-based, and independent process of judicial appointments is crucial to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the judiciary.

• Appointment of Judges: Appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made by the President of India. However, in practice, the process is governed by the Collegium system, evolved through three landmark cases:

• First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981): Held that the executive had primacy in appointments.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Established that the CJI and senior judges have primacy.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Clarified the composition and functioning of the Collegium.

The Collegium comprises the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for Supreme Court appointments, and the CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments.

Critics argue the system lacks transparency and is susceptible to favoritism. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014—aimed at reforming this—was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India) as unconstitutional.

• Tenure and Retirement:

• Supreme Court judges retire at age 65.
• High Court judges retire at age 62.

This tenure ensures that judges have a fixed term, offering them a reasonable period to contribute while minimizing the risk of arbitrary removal.

• Removal of Judges: Article 124(4) of the Constitution provides the procedure for the removal of Supreme Court judges, and Article 217(1)(b) applies to High Court judges. A judge can only be removed on grounds of “proved misbehavior or incapacity” through a rigorous impeachment process:

1. Motion supported by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
2. Inquiry by a committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
3. Approval by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.

This process has rarely been invoked. Notably, Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) faced impeachment proceedings, which failed in the Lok Sabha due to political considerations.

While the procedure ensures judicial independence, critics argue that the near impossibility of removing errant judges may sometimes foster impunity. As a result, there have been demands for establishing a more nuanced mechanism of judicial accountability.

Powers and Functions of the Judiciary:

The Indian judiciary performs a multifaceted role that encompasses dispute resolution, constitutional interpretation, protection of fundamental rights, and checks on legislative and executive action. Its powers are derived from the Constitution and various statutes, and its authority is reinforced through judicial precedents and conventions.

• Dispute Resolution: The primary function of the judiciary is to resolve disputes between individuals, individuals and the state, or between states. This includes civil, criminal, constitutional, administrative, and commercial matters. The courts interpret and apply laws to specific cases, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards. The process reinforces the principle that no individual is above the law.

• Judicial Review: Judicial review is one of the most significant powers of the Indian judiciary. It allows courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. If any provision of a law or executive act violates the Constitution, especially fundamental rights, it can be declared void under Article 13.

Landmark cases such as:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. highlight the judiciary’s role in preserving constitutional supremacy.

• Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, is the guardian of fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 empower them to issue writs for enforcement of rights. The writs include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. These judicial tools have helped citizens seek redress against illegal detention, administrative arbitrariness, and denial of due process.
• Constitutional Interpretation: Judges interpret constitutional provisions in light of changing socio-economic conditions. They apply various rules of interpretation—literal, purposive, harmonious construction, and the mischief rule—to derive the true meaning and intent of the framers. This interpretative role ensures that the Constitution remains a living document.
• Advisory Role: Under Article 143, the President may refer questions of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its opinion. Though such opinions are not binding, they carry persuasive value. Notable examples include the Re: Berubari Union case (1960) and the Special Courts Bill case (1979).
• Contempt Powers: To maintain the dignity and authority of the courts, the judiciary is empowered under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish acts that scandalize the court or obstruct justice. This power ensures compliance with court orders and preserves judicial integrity.
• Law-Making through Judicial Precedents: Through its judgments, especially in constitutional and public interest matters, the judiciary often lays down new principles that acquire the force of law. Such decisions serve as binding precedents under Article 141 for all subordinate courts. Examples include:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Laid down guidelines against sexual harassment.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Recognized passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.

Judicial Independence:

Judicial independence is a foundational principle of the rule of law. It implies that judges should be free from external pressures—whether from the executive, legislature, or powerful interest groups—while discharging their duties. The Indian Constitution, judicial conventions, and institutional structures collectively support this principle.

• Constitutional Provisions Ensuring Independence:

• Security of Tenure: Judges can only be removed through impeachment for proven misbehavior or incapacity (Articles 124 and 217).
• Salaries and Allowances: Determined by law and not subject to arbitrary executive discretion (Article 125).
• Prohibition on Practice: Post-retirement practice in courts where they served is restricted to avoid conflict of interest (Article 220).
• Appointment Process: Though criticized for opacity, the Collegium system reduces executive interference.

• Judicial Pronouncements: In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court declared that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Later, in the Second Judges Case (1993), the Court reinforced the primacy of the judiciary in judicial appointments.
• Functional Autonomy: Judges have control over court administration, listing of cases, and judicial proceedings. Though financial autonomy remains a challenge, some states and the Supreme Court have made strides in digitization, e-filing, and infrastructure upgrades.
• Threats to Judicial Independence:

• Political Interference: Delays in appointments and transfers.
• Post-Retirement Appointments: Raises concerns about neutrality.
• Media Trials: Impact judicial perception and undermine due process.
• Judicial Overload: Huge case pendency weakens timely justice delivery.

• Strengthening Independence: Recommendations include:

• Establishing a National Judicial Commission for transparent appointments.
• Enhancing financial autonomy through dedicated judicial budgets.
• Setting cooling-off periods for post-retirement government roles.
• Encouraging continuous judicial education and ethics training.

Together, these measures would fortify the institutional integrity of the judiciary and empower judges to act impartially and courageously in upholding constitutional values.

Judicial Accountability and Transparency:

While independence is vital for the judiciary, it must be balanced with mechanisms of accountability to maintain public confidence. Judicial accountability refers to the principles and practices that ensure judges perform their duties fairly, ethically, and in accordance with constitutional and legal norms.

• Existing Mechanisms of Accountability:

• Impeachment Process: As discussed earlier, judges can be removed through a constitutionally mandated process involving parliamentary approval. However, its use has been extremely rare.
• In-House Procedure: The judiciary has adopted an internal mechanism for addressing complaints against judges. This process is largely confidential, raising concerns about opacity.
• Code of Conduct: A set of guidelines developed by the Supreme Court governs the ethical conduct of judges. However, it lacks statutory backing.

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): The NJAC, which sought to bring transparency to judicial appointments, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 for violating judicial independence. Despite its nullification, the debate over reforms continues, with calls for a reimagined, balanced system.
• RTI Act and Judiciary: In a landmark ruling in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2019), the Supreme Court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This decision was a milestone in promoting judicial transparency.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Proposed to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges and establish a mechanism for handling complaints, this Bill has faced repeated delays and remains unpassed.
• Suggested Reforms:

• Statutory Judicial Conduct Commission.
• Regular public disclosure of judges’ assets.
• Performance appraisal metrics (excluding content of judgments).
• Transparent appointment and transfer procedures.

These reforms could enhance public faith while preserving core judicial independence.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:

The debate between judicial activism and restraint concerns the appropriate extent of judicial intervention in legislative and executive domains.

• Judicial Activism: Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of judges in filling legislative gaps, interpreting the Constitution broadly, and safeguarding public interest. The Supreme Court pioneered Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in cases like:

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Right to speedy trial.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Right to livelihood.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Sexual harassment guidelines.

Judicial activism has often addressed state inertia and championed the rights of vulnerable groups.

• Merits of Judicial Activism:

• Upholds constitutional values.
• Provides relief in areas of executive failure.
• Promotes social justice and inclusive governance.

• Criticism of Judicial Activism:

• Oversteps separation of powers.
• Lacks accountability.
• May reflect personal ideologies of judges.

• Judicial Restraint: Judicial restraint advocates caution and deference to elected bodies, respecting the constitutional mandate of Parliament and state legislatures. It emphasizes the role of the judiciary as interpreter, not creator, of laws.

Key cases exemplifying restraint:

• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): Limited judicial scrutiny of Presidential discretion.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Balanced approach to President’s Rule.

• Striking a Balance: A judicious mix of activism and restraint ensures that courts intervene only when necessary while avoiding governance by judiciary. The concept of “judicial statesmanship” advocates timely, reasoned, and limited interventions to protect constitutional goals without usurping legislative or executive functions.

Landmark Judgments and Their Impact on Indian Society:

The Indian judiciary, through its landmark judgments, has significantly influenced legal development, public policy, and societal transformation. These judgments not only interpret the law but also reflect the evolving aspirations of Indian society.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This historic verdict established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that certain fundamental features of the Constitution—like rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review—cannot be amended even by Parliament. It preserved the supremacy of the Constitution over transient political will.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court ruled that the procedure established by law must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” laying the foundation for procedural due process and expanding the scope of personal liberty in India.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Faced with legislative vacuum on workplace harassment, the Supreme Court issued binding guidelines to ensure women’s safety and dignity. These were later codified into the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual relationships, striking down parts of Section 377 IPC as unconstitutional. The judgment reaffirmed the right to equality, privacy, and dignity for the LGBTQ+ community.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): The Court lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple, ruling that it violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion). Though controversial, the judgment marked a progressive stride toward gender justice.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was declared unconstitutional, reinforcing the rights of Muslim women and ensuring gender justice under constitutional principles.

These judgments reflect the dynamic character of the judiciary and its commitment to constitutionalism, social reform, and the protection of marginalized voices.

Global Comparison of Judicial Roles and Reforms:

While the Indian judiciary is uniquely empowered and revered, a comparative analysis with other jurisdictions offers valuable insights into best practices and reform.

• United States:

• Judicial Appointments: Made by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
• Lifetime Tenure: Ensures strong independence but invites debates on age-related accountability.
• Judicial Review: Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), similar to India’s review powers.
• Transparent Confirmation Hearings: Provide public scrutiny of judicial nominees.

• United Kingdom:

• Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty: Courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.
• Judicial Appointments Commission: Independent body recommending appointments.
• Codified Ethical Guidelines: Strong emphasis on public accountability.

• Canada:

• Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Offers strong protection of civil liberties.
• Transparent Appointment Process: Balances independence with democratic oversight.

• Lessons for India:

• Transparent and Inclusive Appointments: A reformed NJAC-like body could ensure both independence and accountability.
• Strengthening Lower Judiciary: Through training, infrastructure, and digitization.
• Timely Justice: Introduction of judicial performance metrics and procedural simplification.
• Citizens’ Charter for Judiciary: To institutionalize transparency, accountability, and service delivery standards.

Through a comparative lens, India can reinforce judicial credibility by adopting balanced reforms from global systems, ensuring a future-ready judiciary capable of addressing complex societal challenges.

Challenges Facing the Indian Judiciary:

Despite being one of the most powerful judicial systems globally, the Indian judiciary faces significant challenges that hinder its ability to deliver timely and equitable justice. These systemic issues, if unaddressed, risk eroding public confidence and undermining the rule of law.

• Case Backlog: As of 2024, over 5 crore cases are pending across various courts in India. This chronic backlog delays justice, deters foreign investment, and erodes public faith in the legal system. Contributing factors include shortage of judges, outdated procedures, and lack of supporting staff.
• Vacancies and Infrastructure: A significant number of sanctioned judicial posts remain unfilled, particularly in subordinate courts. Courts often function in inadequate premises, lacking basic amenities like proper seating, storage, internet access, and digitized filing systems.
• Delays in Judicial Appointments: The lack of consensus between the executive and judiciary on appointments, particularly in High Courts, often results in prolonged vacancies. This has been a matter of concern raised by Chief Justices in annual court reports.
• Inaccessibility and Complexity: Legal processes are often inaccessible to marginalized communities due to linguistic, financial, and procedural barriers. Legal jargon, expensive litigation, and intimidating procedures deter the common citizen from seeking redress.
• Corruption and Lack of Transparency: Instances of judicial corruption, though rare, dent the credibility of the institution. The absence of a robust and independent complaint redressal mechanism exacerbates the issue.
• Technological Deficiency: Though e-courts and digital filing have been introduced, the transition has been uneven across states. Many rural and district courts lack the technological capability to implement virtual hearings or manage digital evidence.

• Delayed Judicial Reforms: Many reform proposals, including those for All India Judicial Services, National Court Management Systems, and judicial performance evaluation, remain either pending or partially implemented.

The Future of Judicial Reforms in India:

The path forward for India’s judiciary lies in comprehensive, multi-tiered reforms aimed at enhancing access, efficiency, and transparency.

• Filling Vacancies and Infrastructure Investment: Urgent steps must be taken to fill judicial vacancies and upgrade court infrastructure, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. This includes construction of modern court complexes and provision of digital infrastructure.
• Process Reengineering and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Streamlining court procedures, reducing adjournments, and strengthening ADR mechanisms like arbitration, mediation, and lok adalats can significantly reduce case burden.
• Digitization and AI: Implementing nationwide digital case management systems, AI-based scheduling tools, and e-filing across all levels of courts can improve efficiency. The Supreme Court’s SUVAAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) and NSTEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) are promising examples.
• Judicial Capacity Building: Mandatory continuing education for judges, specialized training in areas like cyber law, IPR, and constitutional theory will ensure judiciary remains abreast of emerging legal challenges.
• Transparent and Accountable Appointments: Revisiting the NJAC or establishing a new, transparent judicial commission with safeguards for judicial independence can democratize the appointments process.
• Citizen-Centric Reforms:

• Simplified court procedures for laypersons.
• Legal aid expansion for rural populations.
• Multilingual e-portals to improve accessibility.

• Strengthening Judicial Accountability: Statutory backing for judicial standards, time-bound grievance redressal systems, and annual judicial performance audits can help ensure accountability without undermining independence.
• Inclusive Justice Delivery: Reforming legal education to align with grassroots realities, promoting diversity in judicial appointments, and institutionalizing gender sensitivity within the system are essential steps toward inclusive justice.

By addressing these challenges through a comprehensive, phased approach, India can shape a judiciary that is swift, fair, modern, and accessible—anchoring the world’s largest democracy on the firm foundations of justice and constitutionalism.

Conclusion:

The judiciary in India occupies a unique and sacrosanct position within the democratic fabric of the nation. As the interpreter of the Constitution, protector of fundamental rights, and watchdog of legality, judges play a decisive role in steering the nation towards justice, liberty, and equality. The comprehensive framework of powers, duties, and responsibilities bestowed upon the judiciary enables it to act as both a shield against arbitrary power and a sword in the fight against injustice.

Throughout history, Indian judges have risen to the occasion in times of constitutional crisis and societal need. Landmark decisions such as Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, and Navtej Johar have not only upheld individual rights but have also defined the essence of Indian democracy. However, this glory is accompanied by growing expectations and mounting challenges—from backlog and resource constraints to questions on transparency and accountability.

Judicial independence, though constitutionally protected, must be constantly nurtured through reforms in appointments, training, infrastructure, and public engagement. The balancing act between judicial activism and restraint must be performed with sensitivity and foresight to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution while addressing contemporary needs.

As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, so too must its judiciary. The future demands a judicial system that is more accessible, inclusive, efficient, and responsive. Digital transformation, structural reforms, and participatory justice models are not mere aspirations—they are imperatives.

Judges, as the face of the judiciary, must embody integrity, competence, and compassion. Their ability to remain impartial while being empathetic, to uphold constitutional morality amidst political noise, and to deliver timely justice without fear or favor will determine the strength of Indian democracy in the decades to come.

In conclusion, the Indian judiciary stands as the bedrock of justice and constitutional governance. Strengthening its foundations through thoughtful reforms and unwavering public trust will ensure that the promise of justice for all, enshrined in the Constitution, becomes a living reality for every citizen.

References:

1. Constitution of India, 1950.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
6. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
7. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
8. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
9. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.
10. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
11. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.
12. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.
13. Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1.
14. Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
15. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
16. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
17. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
18. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (proposed).
19. National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 (struck down).
20. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
21. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
22. India Justice Report 2022, Tata Trusts.
23. E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India, National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology in the Indian Judiciary.
24. Law Commission of India Reports.
25. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis, 8th ed., 2018).
26. Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 24th ed., 2018).