Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

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

Pillay, Anashri (2017) 'Protecting judicial independence through appointments processes : learning from the Indian and South African experiences.', Indian law review., 1 (3). pp. 283-311.

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.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
(612Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2018.1443692
Publisher statement:This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Indian Law Review on 16 March 2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/24730580.2018.1443692
Date accepted:14 February 2018
Date deposited:13 March 2018
Date of first online publication:16 March 2018
Date first made open access:16 March 2019

Save or Share this output

Export:
Export
Look up in GoogleScholar