Sun Sep 15 15:46:02 UTC 2024: ## Judiciary’s Internal Battles: A Deeper Look into the US & India
**New Delhi:** The recent controversy surrounding a Prime Minister’s visit to the Chief Justice’s residence has once again highlighted the delicate relationship between the executive and judiciary in India. While the Congress party accuses the Prime Minister of undermining the Constitution, the situation exposes a long-standing debate about the proper checks and balances between these two branches of government.
The debate echoes a similar one in the US, where research has revealed growing partisanship and polarization within the judiciary. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that US Federal appellate court judges increasingly base their decisions on the political alignment of the trial judges, particularly in recent decades. This trend, according to the study, indicates a shift towards “Judges Judging Judges” based on political affiliation rather than purely legal interpretations.
This research underscores the complex internal dynamics within the judiciary, a phenomenon explored by Max Lerner in his book “Nine Scorpions in a Bottle” about the US Supreme Court. This internal struggle, however, is not unique to the US. India has witnessed its own share of judicial inconsistencies and internal conflicts, with the Supreme Court sometimes overturning its own decisions, creating ambiguity on crucial issues.
The article highlights the historical tension between the executive and the judiciary, with examples from both India and the US. It cites instances where Indian Prime Ministers have sought to influence the judiciary, and how the US Supreme Court’s recent reversal of Roe v Wade underscores the divisive nature of judicial decisions influenced by political ideologies.
The author concludes that the judiciary, despite its crucial role, can be its own worst enemy, leading to inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations of the law. This ultimately creates ambiguity for citizens and potentially empowers the executive branch. The article ends by quoting a former Indian Chief Justice’s observation that while the executive is impatient, the judiciary needs to be circumspect as it is responsible for upholding the law, not changing it.
This article serves as a timely reminder of the complexities and potential pitfalls within the judicial system, particularly in the context of growing political polarization. It prompts a deeper examination of the internal dynamics within the judiciary and its impact on the overall functioning of the legal system.
First Piper 