Judiciary 11 Political Science Chapter 6 CBSE Notes 2025-26

The judiciary in India is not just an arbitrator of legal disputes, but also plays a crucial role in upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of citizens. The Supreme Court, being one of the world’s most powerful courts, ensures that the law prevails over arbitrary actions by anyone, including the government. Understanding how the judiciary is structured and how it maintains its independence is essential for all students of Political Science.

Why an Independent Judiciary is Needed A fair judicial system is at the heart of democracy. The judiciary needs to be independent to settle conflicts between individuals, groups, and government bodies based on laws, free of external influences. This ensures justice for all, regardless of wealth, gender, or background. The principle of rule of law depends on an independent judiciary, which checks the misuse of power and guards democracy against becoming a dictatorship.

Independence of Judiciary Independence means that judges are able to take decisions without pressure from the executive or the legislature. The government cannot interfere with judicial decisions, and judges must act impartially. However, this independence does not mean judges are not accountable. They are accountable to the Constitution and democratic principles. The balance between independence and accountability is key.

To protect this independence, the Constitution includes several checks:

• Legislature has no direct role in appointing judges, avoiding political appointments.
• Judges must be experienced in law; political loyalty is not a criterion.
• Security of tenure—judges serve for a fixed term and can only be removed under rare circumstances.
• Removal of judges requires a strict process needing a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
• Judges’ salaries are not controlled by Parliament, ensuring financial independence.
• Actions and decisions by judges are protected from criticism and they can use contempt of court powers when needed.
• Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges unless considering their removal.

Appointment and Removal of Judges In India, the process of appointing judges is significant because the interpretation of the Constitution varies based on who is chosen. For the Chief Justice of India (CJI), seniority is usually followed, but there have been exceptions. Other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, though the process evolved after 1982, resulting in the ‘collegium system’—the CJI consults four senior-most judges before making recommendations. Political neutrality and legal expertise remain vital in selections.

Removal of judges is rare and can occur only on proven charges of misbehaviour or incapacity. This requires a special parliamentary majority, offering strong job security and preventing misuse of power by other branches. There has only been one case where a removal motion reached Parliament, that of Justice V. Ramaswami, who was not actually removed due to insufficient majority.

Structure of the Judiciary The Indian judiciary is a single, unified system forming a pyramid. At the top is the Supreme Court of India, whose decisions are final and binding on all other courts in the country. Below the Supreme Court are the High Courts, each for a state or group of states, followed by District Courts and finally, Subordinate Courts. The High Courts supervise lower courts and can issue orders for the protection of Fundamental Rights. District Courts deal with cases arising within districts, and Subordinate Courts handle civil and criminal matters at the lowest level.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court The Supreme Court has vast powers under different types of jurisdictions:

• Original Jurisdiction: Handles disputes directly between the Centre and states or among states. Only the Supreme Court can listen to these disputes from the start.
• Appellate Jurisdiction: Hears appeals against the judgments of High Courts in civil, criminal, and constitutional cases.
• Advisory Jurisdiction: The President can ask the Court for its opinion on significant legal questions, though this advice is not binding.
• Writ Jurisdiction: Issues writs for the protection of Fundamental Rights, like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and others.
• Special Powers: Can allow appeals even when they do not fit the above categories, if the Court thinks it is necessary.

Judicial Activism and PIL Judicial activism has brought the judiciary closer to the people. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Social Action Litigation (SAL) allow people or groups to approach the court in matters of public concern, even if they are not directly affected. Starting from 1979, the courts began accepting such petitions, resulting in several landmark rulings that expanded the understanding of rights and brought relief to disadvantaged groups. However, judicial activism has also increased the pressure on courts and sometimes results in the judiciary stepping into areas reserved for the executive or legislature.

Some important early PIL cases include Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar, which addressed the rights of undertrial prisoners, and Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, which dealt with the physical torture of prisoners.

Judiciary and Rights The judiciary protects individual rights primarily in two ways. First, it can issue writs under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) to restore fundamental rights. Second, through judicial review (under Article 13), courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. The rise of PILs has made access to justice easier, especially for those who are poor or socially disadvantaged.

Relationship with Parliament The judiciary checks abuse of power by interpreting and enforcing constitutional limits, even bringing areas like the powers of the President and Governors under judicial scrutiny. Still, there have been clashes between Parliament and the judiciary, especially around property rights and constitutional amendments. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) set a precedent by declaring that the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament, maintaining checks and balances.

Many important questions arise from this relationship, including the extent to which Parliament can amend rights, whether the judiciary can regulate legislatures, and how much Parliament can comment on the judiciary and vice versa. Democracy survives when each organ respects the powers and functions of the other.

Conclusion The Indian judiciary holds a unique and respected place in the democratic framework. Its independence, wide powers, and commitment to constitutional values help maintain rule of law and protect rights. However, it must balance power with responsibility and work alongside other branches for the smooth functioning of democracy. Understanding the judiciary’s working provides valuable insights into how justice, rights, and governance are protected in India.

Class 11 Political Science Chapter 6 Notes – Indian Constitution at Work: Judiciary Important Revision Points

These CBSE class 11 Political Science notes focus on Chapter 6 Judiciary from the Indian Constitution at Work, helping students to quickly grasp essential points such as judicial structure, independence, appointments, and judicial review. The content is organized for easy last-minute revision and builds strong conceptual clarity.

By reviewing these notes, students get a reliable summary of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, PILs, and Parliament-judiciary relations. Using them supports exam preparation, ensures coverage of all important topics, and reinforces key terms crucial for objective and descriptive questions.