A Probe into the Judicial Competence and Independence: A Dainty Projection

  • Surbhi Meshram and
  • Show Author Details
  • Surbhi Meshram

    Assistant Professor at Kalinga University Raipur C.G, India

  • Shreya Bajpai

    Assistant Professor at Amity Law School, Amity University Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

  • img Save PDF


The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy, and that means we need to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions regardless of the current winds that are blowing. The other arms of government, including the executive and legislative branches, must not impair the judiciary's capability to do justice. Judges must be enabled to carry out the tasks without fear of retaliation or prejudice. The principal goal of judicial independence is for judges to be free to decide a matter before them based on the law, without being affected by any other element. A French philosopher named Montesquieu proposed the notion of an independent state. He believed in the separation of powers doctrine, which holds that the three branches of the government – legislature, executive, and judiciary – have separate powers. His notion influenced the founding fathers of the American Constitution, who established an independent court in their country. Before 1701, judges in the United Kingdom served at the discretion of the monarch, and like any other royal servant, they may be fired by the king at any time. The Act of Settlement 1701 guaranteed judicial independence. Though there is no express provision in the Indian Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be undermined by constitutional amendments, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained in S.P. Gupta v Union of India . Irrespective of the context in which they are used, the terms independence and impartiality have varying meanings in general, both impartiality and independence are seen as safeguards for the objectivity and fairness of judicial processes, respectively. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, impartiality implies that judges must not hold any prejudices regarding the issue presented before them, and that they must not act in ways that favor the interests of one of the parties. By contrast, judicial autonomy protects the judiciary’s execution of judicial tasks from intervention by governmental agencies or private individuals.


Research Paper


International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, Volume 93 - 104, Issue 3, Page 5

DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLSI.111062

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLSI 2021