INTRODUCTION
“Judicial independence is the ability of courts and judges to carry out their responsibilities without interference or control from other entities, whether public or private.” The phrase “judicial independence” was first used by the French philosopher Montesquieu in the eighteenth century. Under the Act of Settlement in 1701, England and Wales introduced the idea of judicial independence. For the first time, judges will enjoy a secure tenure that cannot be terminated at the whim of the Lords, thanks to this Act. The independence of the judiciary is expressly protected in the majority of written constitutions in existence today. The United Nations General Assembly’s 1985 adoption of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary is one example of how judicial independence has been explicitly supported on a global scale. Both the United Kingdom and India consider the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental constitutional principle.[1]
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN INDIA
The judiciary is seen as the people’s last resort and interprets the law more broadly for their benefit. Since the judiciary serves a variety of purposes, it must operate independently of other branches of government. Other organs should refrain from attempting to meddle in the judiciary’s affairs, as this would impair a democracy’s ability to function smoothly. The judiciary, a crucial governmental organ, ought to be impartial and unaffected by outside influences. The three distinct branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—maintain the stability and ideals of a democratic nation like India. Each of these bodies is crucial to the nation’s efficient government and upholds the idea of the separation of powers. The legislature enacts laws, the executive branch carries them out, and the judiciary acts as a watchdog over the other two branches by ensuring that the laws are constitutional. Because of this, an independent judiciary is essential to a thriving democracy. Judicial Independence is considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
The Indian Constitution is regarded as the nation’s supreme law, and the judiciary serves as a guardian to uphold the rights and obligations granted to its citizens. The constitution provides provisions to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Supreme Court and High Court judges enjoy tenure security. After being appointed, they stay in the position until they are old enough to retire. According to Article 124(2)[3][2] and Article 217[4][3] of the Indian Constitution, the retirement age for judges of the Supreme Court and High Court is 65 and 62, respectively. If judges are determined to have engaged in misconduct or incapacity, they may be removed from office. Only on the recommendation of both houses of parliament may the president of India remove a judge from office. The Supreme Court has the authority to punish itself for contempt under Article 129[9][4]. According to Article 215 [10][5] of the Constitution, all the high have the authority to penalize for their disobedience. The Indian Constitution’s Article 125 [5][6] addresses judges’ pay. Judges are paid at a set rate. Judges are able to operate freely for this reason as well. Article 32[6][7] of the Indian Constitution gives citizens the ability to go directly to the Supreme Court in cases when their fundamental rights have been violated. The Supreme Court may also issue a writ in those cases. Parliament can only expand the Supreme Court’s authority and jurisdiction; it cannot restrict it. The budgetary cap for Supreme Court appeals may be altered by Parliament. Article 121 [7][8] prohibits parliament from discussing the behavior of any Supreme Court or High Court judges unless the President has approved a move for their impeachment.[9]
CHALLENGES FACED
India’s judicial independence suffers a number of obstacles in spite of the constitutional protections. Among the main challenges to the judiciary’s independence are political pressure, judicial corruption, lack of transparency in judicial nominations, and insufficient security for judges. Political pressures frequently undermine the judiciary’s independence, particularly in high-profile cases. To advance their political objectives, governments may try to directly or indirectly sway court rulings. Although the Indian judiciary has generally been able to preserve its independence, there have been times when outside forces have made it more difficult for it to operate. Another major issue that undermines the judiciary’s independence and credibility is judicial corruption. Bribery and corruption in the legal system erode public confidence and reduce the power of the judiciary.
Although the Collegium is in charge of the judicial recruitment process, its lack of transparency has drawn criticism. There are risks to the safety of Indian judges, especially while handling delicate or controversial cases.[10]
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
In the UK, the idea of judicial independence has developed over centuries, with a number of significant turning points. By stating that justice should not be sold, refused, or postponed, the Magna Carta of 1215 established the groundwork for an autonomous court. By guaranteeing that judges could not be removed from office without an address from both Houses of Parliament, the Act of Settlement 1701 significantly strengthened judicial independence. More recently, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which greatly increased judicial independence by dividing the judiciary from the legislative and executive departments.[11] “The CRA removed the Lord Chancellor and placed the Lord Chief Justice in charge of the judiciary in compliance with a deal reached at the 2004 Concordat. The division of powers between the executive and judicial branches was further clarified in 2008 by a Framework Document for the functioning of the Courts Service, which was expanded and updated in 2011 to include the Tribunals Service. The CRA also created a new Supreme Court, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, and the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, all of which are products of the CRA”.
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
While uk constitution is unwritten, several safeguards exist. A fundamental ideal like the rule of law is expressly acknowledged by the Constitutional Reform Act[12], which was approved by Parliament in 2005. By mandating that the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, and other government ministers make sure it is upheld, the Act protects judicial independence. To maintain judicial independence, parliamentarians, whether or not they are in government, must adhere to specific guidelines while communicating with judges. For example, it would be unlawful to write or speak to a judge about a specific case in an effort to sway its outcome.
Tenure security and financial stability are the primary means of achieving independence.
CHALLENGES FACED
The following are the main contemporary issues and concerns regarding judicial independence in the UK:
Political/government interference: It is believed that the UK government may undermine judicial review and external power limits by interfering with or restricting the courts’ authority to investigate or challenge executive actions. This is partially seen in the rule of law’s unconventionality, which compromises protection.
Financial and resource constraints: Since 2009–10, the state has drastically reduced its budget to the court by 22%. This has led to backlogs, inadequate infrastructure, and judicial overload, all of which have impacted the judiciary’s independence and efficacy.
Internal judicial independence concerns: Issues that affect internal judicial independence and judicial morale include the lack of efficient channels for judicial complaints, judicial discrimination, judicial bullying, and judicial hierarchical challenges.
Incapacity of the government to carry out the court order: The government’s increasing inability to carry out a court decision that goes against its interests deprives the institution of its independence and the confidence of the public.[13]
CONCLUSION
An independent judiciary is essential to a thriving democracy. The independence of the judiciary is seen as a basic constitutional element in both India and the United Kingdom. Despite having different constitutional frameworks, India offers clear constitutional protections, while the UK depends on statutory laws and robust constitutional provisions to safeguard judicial independence. Nevertheless, difficulties still exist in spite of these protections. Despite the constitutional safeguards, India’s judicial independence faces several challenges. Political pressure, judicial corruption, and inadequate security for judges are some of the primary obstacles to the judiciary’s independence. In a similar way, the UK has a number of challenges, including internal judicial issues, financial limitations, and political/government involvement. As a result, both nations have strong systems in place to safeguard judicial independence, but there are still obstacles in the way of actual maintenance and protection. Respect for the rule of law and ongoing institutional vigilance are necessary.
Author(s) Name: Tanishka Indurkar (Prestige Institute of Management and Research Department of Law)
References:
[1] David S Law, ‘Judicial independence’, Encyclopaedia Britannica <https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-independence> accessed 18 January 2026.
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art. 124(2)
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art. 217(4)
[4] Constitution of India 1950, art. 129(9)
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art. 215(10)
[6] Constitution of India 1950, art. 125(5)
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art. 36(6)
[8] Constitution of India 1950, art. 121(7)
[9] Soumi Kundu, ‘The Concept of Judicial Independence’, Legal Vidhiya <https://legalvidhiya.com/tag/the-concept-of-judicial-independence/> accessed 18 January 2026.
[10] Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Independence of Judiciary in India’, Lawbhoomi <https://lawbhoomi.com/independence-of-judiciary-in-india/> accessed 18 January 2026.
[11]Jha Pranav Kumar, ‘Independence of Judiciary, Judicial Activism, and Accountability: India, UK and USA’ (Legal Research And Analysis, Volume II Issue 1, April 2025) <https://legalresearchandanalysis.com/independence-of-judiciary-judicial-activism-and-accountability-india-uk-and-usa/> accessed 18 January 2026.
[12] Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
[13] Staff Reporter, ‘Does the UK Have an Independent Judiciary? History, Safeguards and Modern Challenges’, Parliament news <https://parliamentnews.co.uk/does-the-uk-have-an-independent-judiciary-history-safeguards-and-modern-challenges> accessed 18 January 2026.
