Here you will find the Essay on “Role of Judiciary in a Democratic Society” for CSS, PMS, and Judiciary Exam. The Judiciary plays a vital role in the growth of any country’s justice delivery system. Without a proper justice system, no state can survive. So, In this essay, you will find the role of the judiciary in a democratic society.
Essay on “Role of Judiciary in a Democratic Society”
Pakistan has a highly developed judicial system with the Supreme Court having plenary powers to make an order for doing complete justice in any cause or matter and a mandate in the Constitution, to all authorities, Civil and Judicial, in the territory of Pakistan to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The scope of Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts is wider than traditionally understood and the judiciary is separate and independent of the executive to ensure impartiality in the administration of justice.
The judiciary has a central role to play in this thriving democracy and shuns arbitrary executive action. The higher judiciary has been empowered to pronounce upon the legislative competence of the law-making bodies and the validity of a legal provision. The range of judicial review recognized in the higher judiciary in Pakistan is the wisest and most extensive known to any democratic setup in the world.
The importance of the Judiciary in a democratic setup for the protection of personal and proprietary rights can hardly be overestimated. The principal function of the Judiciary is to provide legal remedies against infringement of personal 2nd property rights of a person.
The intellectual property rights for their effectiveness depend upon the speed with which they can be enforced by the courts. The statutory provisions provide only a medium of direction as regards the nature of remedies and the procedure for safeguarding them, leaving a large extent of free play within the province of judges.
In the cacophony of voices decrying the principle of judicial independence and branding judges as activists, is a clarion call. While it is proper and indeed healthy to debate and criticize judicial opinions or developments in the Rule of Law, this exercise is not constructive when it is fueled by a lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject. . Insiders, whether judges, lawyers, or law students, often find themselves providing the most basic lessons to family members and friends. We are thus called to educate those voices and those who heed those voices.
Our nation is largely illiterate in matters of civics and government, and particularly so in matters concerning the judicial system. There are many erroneous assumptions and a host of misperceptions that underlie much of the criticism lodged against the judiciary. One need only survey the radio airwaves, the press releases of members of the executive or legislative branches, and the content of news and opinion pieces in various media to identify wrong assumptions and perceptions. Among the more common assumptions are these:
- Judges decide cases in accordance with their ideology or political allegiance.
- The Judges decide cases in accordance with their personal or financial interests.
- Judges favor certain individuals or classes of litigants.
- All Judges usurp the legislative role and the will of the populace by creating laws.
- Judicial independence accords judge the latitude to subvert the will of the people and the authority of the legislature without accountability.
The role of the judiciary and the nature of its work is fundamentally misunderstood. If one believes that judges have unbridled power, which they use at will for improper purposes, with improper motivations, of course, the notion of judicial independence 1s alarming. As Justice O’Connor and other jurists have noted, before we can champion the principle of judicial independence, we must first educate and enlighten those voices as to the judiciary’s role and purpose.
Indeed, much of the misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary parallels a misunderstanding of the adversarial system the role, purpose, and work of lawyers. Just as voices cry out that judges rule in accordance with their own personal opinions, voices challenge lawyers who represent criminal defendants, or those accused of unseemly conduct.
The assumption that lawyers who represent “undesirables” must themselves be undesirable or corrupt, or at least hoodwinked, parallels the assumption that judges’ decisions represent their own ideology or preferences. A fundamental lesson that must be imparted is that our judicial system is designed to provide legal representation for everyone so that the truth can be ascertained after the development of the facts by an objective trier of the facts and after determination of the law by an objective adjudicator.
A parallel lesson that must be imparted is that our judicial system is designed to resolve controversies based on a set of laws, principles, or rules that are applied objectively and reliably to provide litigants with some measure of predictability of the outcome of their controversy. In fact, it is this set of laws or rules, the Rule of Law, that allows most controversies to be settled without trial; the parties, acting through their advocates, can do a risk assessment based on the predictability provided by the Rule of Law.
The role of the judiciary in a democratic society such as ours is a pivotal one. The judiciary is one of the three pillars of the modern democratic nation-state and is essential to the process of check and balance so fundamental to the way societies such as ours are meant to operate and function. Lawyers describe this process of check and balance as emanating from the doctrine of the separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature a1d the Judiciary.
Narrowing down the focus of discussion, the question of the role of the judiciary in the fight against corruption is an interesting one. By its very nature, the Judiciary is required to adjudicate in matters involving corruption and was moved to do so. The courts are not intended to descend into the arena, they are not meant to seek out this scourge with a view to stamping it out, no matter how much they would like to do so, or how much we may want them to do so.
So, it would seem that all we can expect of the courts in this regard is to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. To convict where such convictions are warranted, acquit where the law requires this to be done, and sentence appropriately in accordance with guiding principles.
Closer scrutiny suggests that the courts may have a further, more evolved rote. Any effective campaign strategy agair1st corruption will have to be multi-pronged. To this end, it is as necessary to identify the key actors or implementers of the strategy as it is to identify its targets. This paper aims at determining whether the judiciary is one such key actor or implementer, and if so, whether this entails more than its apparent role as adjudicator. lt will also seek to come to an understanding of whether this extended role, if any, can be reconciled with the functions and limitations of the judiciary, in theory as well as in practice.
The primary function of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy is to protect the constitution – the sacred contract between the citizens and the government and between different branches of the government. It does so by elucidating and defining the content of the constitution while arbitrating between different parties. in order to perform their function, the judiciary must logically be empowered with the authority to arbitrate future conflicts over the constitution and to overturn any actions of the government that violate it.
The courts’ impartiality and independence from the other branches of the government also need to be ensured so that the courts can perform their function effectively. Impartiality and independence of the judiciary are not easy to achieve because, unlike legislature, the court’s authority is based directly on the supremacy of the constitution. And the supremacy of the constitution is achieved in minds more than on paper.
You may also like these:
