Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Protecting judicial independence through appointments processes: learning from the Indian and South African experiences

Pillay, Anashri

Protecting judicial independence through appointments processes: learning from the Indian and South African experiences Thumbnail


Authors



Abstract

In October 2015, by majority judgement, the Indian Supreme Court found the Constitutional (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 to be unconstitutional. In a judgement that runs to over a thousand pages, certain judges reasoned that judicial independence was part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, as such, not susceptible to abrogation by Parliament. A majority of the judges held that the commission-based appointments process in the legislation would impinge on judicial independence. Thus, the legislation had to be struck down. Drawing on developments in South Africa, this article argues that, whilst aspects of the Indian Supreme Court’s judgement were motivated by legitimate concerns about executive dominance over judicial appointments, the idea that judicial primacy over the process is the only means through which independence can be assured is flawed. The judgement was a missed opportunity to interrogate the meaning of judicial independence and to consider how a more transparent process could act to protect independence whilst also enhancing judicial accountability, legitimacy and diversity.

Citation

Pillay, A. (2017). Protecting judicial independence through appointments processes: learning from the Indian and South African experiences. Indian Law Review, 1(3), 283-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2018.1443692

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Feb 14, 2018
Online Publication Date Mar 16, 2018
Publication Date Sep 2, 2017
Deposit Date Mar 13, 2018
Publicly Available Date Sep 16, 2019
Journal Indian law review
Print ISSN 2473-0580
Electronic ISSN 2473-0599
Publisher Taylor and Francis Group
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 1
Issue 3
Pages 283-311
DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2018.1443692

Files







You might also like



Downloadable Citations