The Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, and judicial independence)

Through judicial review, the judiciary examines whether a law made by Parliament conforms to the Constitution and fundamental rights. If a law, or part of it, is unconstitutional, a court may declare it invalid. The judiciary does not permanently prevent Parliament from making laws; it safeguards constitutional limits. Exam tip: checking a law against the Constitution points to judicial review.

Judiciary can give relief in matters of rights and equality. PIL can become a tool of social justice.

Independent judiciary keeps constitutional check on power. Without it the checking system weakens.

Court's work is to decide based on law not popular emotion. This is a condition of impartiality.

Writs are constitutional remedies for protection of rights. Link them with rights-protecting power of higher courts.

When government is a party impartial court protects citizens. This is an example of equality before law.

Judicial activism can protect rights but also raises questions of institutional limits. Understand the balance for exams.

Evidence-based justice prevents arbitrary and mob-based decisions. This is needed for rule of law.

In federal system disputes may arise between Centre and states. Judiciary resolves them based on the Constitution.

The Constitution protects rights of all citizens. Judiciary gives equal justice beyond majority pressure.

Courts should be independent and their process trustworthy. Both strengthen legitimacy of justice.

In democracy reasoned discussion on judgments is possible. But dignity and orders of courts must also be respected.

Independent judiciary examines wrong actions based on law. It increases accountability in governance.

A judicial decision should give reasons because the parties need to know how the court reached its conclusion. Reasons show which facts, laws and constitutional principles were considered. They make the process more transparent, discourage arbitrary decisions, and allow a higher court or another lawful authority to review the reasoning. Reasoned judgments also help future cases by explaining how legal principles are understood.

Option A follows from these ideas: a reasoned judgment is transparent and reviewable. It does not make the decision secret or remove the need for law. Nor does giving reasons dissolve Parliament. A court may still make an error, but clearly stated reasons make that error easier to identify and challenge through the proper appeal or review process.

Courts must be pressure-free to protect civil liberties. This is a key safeguard of democracy.

Clear interpretation of Constitution explains rights and institutional limits. Weak interpretation can increase confusion.

Judiciary helps enforce core constitutional values. Link it with rights and limited government.

In judicial review, courts examine whether a government action conforms to the Constitution, the law, and the prescribed procedure. A government may have a public-spirited intention, but that intention cannot make an unconstitutional or illegal action valid. Option B is a close distractor because public interest must also be pursued within legal limits. Exam tip: Link ‘legal validity’ with compliance with the Constitution, law, and procedure.

Judiciary not only resolves disputes but also protects Constitution and rights. This is its democratic importance.

Excessive power influence in appointment can create doubt about independence. Link appointment with institutional independence.