Q.

“The independence of the judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and
is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. The reputation of our judiciary is
unrivalled and our judges are people of integrity and impartiality.”
Describe the two key aspects of judicial independence and explain how
institutional judicial independence is constitutionally significant.

The statement in the question above emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and states
that judicial independence is paramount to preserving the rule of law. Furthermore, the declaration
asserts that judicial independence and impartiality are intended only to give the judiciary a good
reputation. He is then asked to describe two aspects of judicial independence and how important
these aspects are. An independent judiciary is paramount to the rule of law because it gives the
people a sense of security and freedom, and it is this aspect of the judiciary, independence and
impartiality, that is why people think of this nation as an ego. It is no exaggeration to say that A good
institution unlike any other. In this answer, I will first explain what the judiciary and the rule of law
are. Then I will discuss what judicial independence and impartiality mean, what steps governments
have taken to ensure it, and what their constitutional significance is. I would like to emphasize It will
then be analyzed by establishing the link between judicial independence and the rule of law. Analysis
will include why judicial independence and impartiality distinguish this state institution from others.
In conclusion, this paper can assert that judicial independence and impartiality are one of the most
important aspects of judiciary, which gives legitimacy to this democratically flawed state institution.

The judiciary is one of the three organs of the state that is primarily responsible for the
interpretation of the law. The judiciary consists of judges and courts in a hierarchical order. The
judge is the embodiment of the law and thus this body can be described as a guardian, dispenser or
guardian of justice. For the rule of law, the rule of law has no clear definition, but in summary, the
principles that govern this doctrine are that no one is above the law and that the law treats everyone
equally. This doctrine is defined by Bingham in his eight sub-rules, which mainly emphasize equality
and fairness, thus reiterating the points mentioned above. The rule of law is a fundamental element
of any democratic country.

Before linking judicial independence and the rule of law, it is necessary to explain what judicial
independence and impartiality mean and how governments have sought to ensure this. Judicial
independence, he said, has two sides. External independence and internal independence (fairness).
First, in order to discuss external independence, there must be no intervention or interference with
the judiciary by any other agency, individual or state. The judiciary must be independent in its
functioning. Similarly, internal independence or impartiality means that the judiciary should be
impartial and neutral. Judges should not be arbitrary and should not be clouded by personal grudges
or perceptions.

Having discussed the implications of judicial independence and impartiality, it is important to

highlight the steps the government has taken to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The first
andmost important step is CRA 2005. Prior to this law, this system was incompatible and directly
conflicted with article 6. Despite the concept of decentralization, it was not implemented properly,
so it had to be restored. To revive this concept, this action was introduced. What this action did is it
changed the composition of the Prime Minister's office because it directly contradicted the basic
constitutional principles of separation of powers. At that time, the Lord Chancellor was one of three
organs of state, he was the head of the judiciary as well as the spokesman for the House of Lords and
a member of the Cabinet. This is a clear violation of decentralization and Article 6, as it is clearly
contrary to the principles of judicial independence. The act thus removed the Lord Chancellor from
his position as head of justice and spokesman for the House of Lords, now serving only as a member
of the cabinet as Minister of Justice. This act further abolished the House Judiciary Committee and
established the Supreme Court to strengthen judicial independence. Another thing that was done
was the establishment of the Independent Judiciary Appointments Committee (JAC).

Then came the McGonell v. UK case, in which the ECtHR affirmed the importance of judicial
independence and found that Article 6 was violated when the sitting judge in this case was also the
administrator of the case. The judge failed the practical test and violated article 6. Other measures
taken by the government include protection against dismissal, and judges cannot be dismissed on
the grounds of their rulings, no matter how unreasonable. This gives judges peace of mind because
they can deliver tougher sentences against those in power if necessary. In addition, judges are
guaranteed tenure for life, which means they remain in office until they become physically or
mentally incapacitated. Payroll protection is another measure taken by the government to ensure
that judges cannot be bribed and rely on money from the wrong sources because judges earn high
salaries. It's not as easy as getting rid of it.

Going to the analysis, it should be pointed out that the main problem of the judiciary is that it is not
elected and therefore has no public mandate. This often leads to questions about its legitimacy. The
only thing that gives legitimacy to this deficient democratic body of the state is the trust of the
public, without which this organ of the state is worthless. Judicial independence ensures that public
trust remains in this institution, thus giving it legitimacy. We will now establish the link between the
rule of law and judicial independence. When the public perceives that the judiciary is not
independent or impartial, public trust declines, leading to a lack of trust in the system. This lack of
trust will weaken the power of the state because the people will no longer trust the system. The rule
of the crowd will prevail and everyone will solve the problem on their own. This is where civil wars
will take place, which will undermine the rule of law and violate Article 6; right to a fair trial before
an independent and impartial tribunal. This right embodies here the direct link that exists between
judicial independence and the rule of law.

Here we will analyze how and to what extent the measures taken by the government ensured the
independence of the judiciary. As explained above, CRA 2005 was the most significant action taken
by the government. Why was the Lord Chancellor removed from office as Chief Justice and Speaker
of the House of Lords, and why was the House of Lords Judicial Committee abolished? The answers
to these questions are very simple. How can we ensure the independence of the judiciary? If the
Attorney General is a member of the executive branch and parliament, would the judiciary appear
independent? No, it's not. That's why he was removed as Attorney General. Because the judiciary
should not only be independent, it should appear independent according to the externality test, or it
would violate Article 6. Become. For the process to be impartial, judicial bodies must pass
performance tests. Furthermore, the House of Peers Judicial Committee was abolished and the
Supreme Court was established. One of the Supreme Court's duties is to review the validity of the
laws of Congress. If the Supreme Court were not established and left its duties to the House of Lords
Judiciary Committee, would they be breaking the laws of their own making? Yet would the public
perceive them as independent or impartial? The Judiciary Committee of the House of Peers also
failed to scrutinize it, leading to its abolition.

With regard to the defense against dismissal, judges cannot be questioned about decisions they
make, even if the decision is wrong. If the judge is sure that he has honestly decided a case, then he
cannot be dismissed. It is a protection for those who are defenders ofjustice. What will happen to the
judiciary if it does not benefit from this protection? They will end up like the Pakistani civil service,
unable to take appropriate action against anyone, anyone in power because they could be
transferred or even fired. Do Pakistanis trust the civil service? They may at some point, but not now.
The reason is that the Pakistani civil service has no safeguards against dismissal, is not independent
and therefore has little or no public trust. If the judiciary doesn't have protections from dismissal, it
could overshadow their rulings because they can't go against those in power and therefore won't be
able to uphold the rule of law.

In summary, judicial independence has played an important role in preserving the rule of law, and
there is no doubt that it is the main reason for the judiciary's unparalleled reputation. The
importance of an independent judiciary is also reflected in the actions taken by governments to
ensure its importance. These include CRA 2005, fugitive protection, job security and wage
protection. The response then drew parallels with Pakistani civil servants and considered what
happens when the judiciary is not independent. An independent judiciary is therefore crucial to
uphold the rule of law and Article 6, and ultimately to enhance public trust and legitimacy in this
democratic and flawed state institution.
INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY

Simply put, the judiciary has a mandate to protect individual liberties. This cannot be achieved if the
judiciary acts under pressure from others to perform its duties and not make decisions that are
appropriate to the circumstances. The rule of law is at the heart of Britain, and the rule of law
requires the judiciary to act independently. This is to ensure that the judiciary does not allow
external factors to influence decisions, regardless of who the decisions are made against. Judiciary
independence simply cannot be achieved if the judiciary is free from external pressure, such as other
state bodies, the media, and other judges.

STATE

The judiciary is itself an organ of the state, so when it comes to the independence of the judiciary
from other agencies, i.e. executive and legislative, we are mainly to the independence that the
judiciary should have regarding appointment, salary, tenure, and criticism. No judicial body can be
independent if selected on the basis of favor rather than merit. Prior to the Constitutional Reform
Act of 2005 (CRA), it was criticized that the judiciary was secretly chosen and that there was too
much political involvement in the process. The newly established system of appointing judges by law
allows an independent committee to appoint judges based solely on competence and good character.
This ensures that the independence of the judge is not compromised.

It is often argued that judges could theoretically undermine their independence if tenure or salaries
were jeopardized. The law of England and Wales offers judges (to some degree) protection with
respect to both these elements. Judges' salaries are recommended by an independent salary review
agency, avoiding pressure from the executive branch. But it is the government that must accept or
reject such recommendations. A denial occurs when the government gives an explanation as to why
it rejected the recommendation.

However, this has not been an issue for the past three decades. In addition, judges' salaries are
charged into a consolidated fund, which does not require an annual vote by the legislature, thus
ensuring that no impediments can be caused in this area. The salaries of judges must not only be
secure and independent of the executive and legislative branches, but they must also be unbiased
and commensurate. With regard to salary reductions, there is a contrast between the positions of
lower and superior court judges, as only judges of higher courts are protected as their salaries
cannot be reduced (High Court Act 1981 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005). Although it is often
argued that judges do not receive commensurate salaries, judges' salaries have increased over the
past year. Judge salaries have increased significantly by 2% over the past year. In addition, judges
receive other benefits to compensate for any disproportionate pay.

The tenure of senior judges is guaranteed by provisions of the Superior Courts Act 1981 and the
Constitutional Amendment Act 2005. These clauses reinstate the law set forth in the Settlement Act,
according to which Senior Judges cannot be removed by the Registrar (except in the case of
disability). Except in the case of obstruction, the only way a High Judge can be removed is by
Parliament passing a speech approved by the Queen. As with the aforementioned inequalities, these
protections are not guaranteed to junior judges. Therefore, junior judges can be dismissed for
obstruction and misconduct. Although such methods of dismissal do exist, judges are rarely
dismissed, and it is more common for judges to leave office to protect their honor. However, it has
been used occasionally since Chief Justice Jonah Barrington was removed from office in 1830.

A judge who is subject to congressional criticism may also find himself in a difficult position
regarding his independence. To protect judges from such criticism, there are rules (such as the
Erskine May Rule) and conventions intended to protect judges from criticism in Parliament.
However, this offers little protection for the judges, who havebeen repeatedly criticized by ministers
outside of parliament. Examples of this include David Blunkett's criticism of Collins J in a radio
interview, Michael Foot's full-blown criticism of justice during a protest. To remedy this, the House
Select Committee asked the executive to amend the Ministerial Code. The government has accepted
this recommendation.

Other judges are not independent bodies, but it is also worth noting that the requirement of
independence for judges also applies where judges may be influenced by fellow judges. . Therefore,
no judge should act in a manner that conforms to his successor's approach, which might give the
impression that his independence is compromised. This does not mean that judges should ignore the
established doctrine of binding precedent.
MEDIA

The impact that the media can have today on the independence of the judiciary cannot be ignored.
Judiciary authorities in the early 20th century held media workers accountable for contempt of court
when they criticized the judiciary. However, this is something that has changed drastically. Media
plays an important role in today's society and this also extends to the limits of social media. That
said, blaming the media for contempt of court cannot be the usual response of the courts and
therefore judges should be tough enough to ignore any comment. any about them. Public criticismof
court decisions is not new and many examples include the 1986 Spycatcher case when the Daily
Mirror published a picture titled 'Idiot'. Undoubtedly, such actions lead to an understanding of
judicial independence as Lord Neuberger envisioned "thoughtless attacks on judges that undermine
the rule of law in the country." and the international reputation of the judiciary".