Compare and Contrast the Independence of the Judicial System in India and China

Introduction

Judicial independence in India and China refers to the ability of courts and judges to discharge their functions impartially, without undue influence or interference from the legislature, executive or other political authorities. India and China follow different constitutional and political systems, which significantly influence the functioning and independence of their respective judiciaries.

I. Independence of the Judiciary in India

• The Indian Constitution establishes an independent judiciary as an essential feature of its constitutional framework. The Supreme Court and High Courts act as guardians of the Constitution and protect fundamental rights.
• Article 50 (DPSP) directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services.
• Under Articles 124(4) and 217, Supreme Court and High Court judges can be removed only through a stringent parliamentary removal procedure on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• The collegium system, evolved through the Second and Third Judges Cases, gives the judiciary a significant role in judicial appointments.
• Salaries and allowances of Supreme Court and High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary voting, ensuring financial independence.
• Articles 13, 32 and 226 empower constitutional courts to review legislative and executive actions and protect fundamental rights i.e., Judicial Review.
• In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine. Judicial independence is recognised as an essential feature of this doctrine.

II. Independence of the Judiciary in China

• The Chinese Constitution of 1982 establishes the People's Courts as the judicial organs of the State. The Supreme People's Court (SPC) is the highest judicial organ.
• People's Courts exercise judicial power independently in accordance with law and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, social organisations or individuals.
• By Article 132, The Supreme People's Court is the highest judicial organ and supervises the administration of justice by lower courts.
• The Supreme People's Court is responsible to the National People's Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee.
• Unlike India, China follows a CPC-led political system. The Constitution recognises the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Consequently, the judiciary operates within the broader framework of Party leadership rather than as an institution independent of the ruling political party.
• The NPC and its Standing Committee exercise oversight over the judiciary.
• Chinese courts do not possess the same power of judicial review as Indian constitutional courts to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds. Constitutional interpretation and oversight primarily rest with the NPC and its Standing Committee.

III. India and China: A Comparative Perspective

Conclusion

India and China demonstrate two distinct approaches to judicial governance. India's constitutional framework emphasises separation of powers, judicial review and institutional independence, whereas China's judicial system operates within the broader framework of Communist Party leadership and people's congress oversight.