Article 50 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 50 of the Constitution of India:
Title: Separation of judiciary from the executive
Article 50 – The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
Explanation:
Article 50 is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) under Part IV of the Indian Constitution. It is not enforceable by any court, but it lays down a fundamental objective for the governance of the country.
The main idea behind Article 50 is to ensure the independence of the judiciary from the executive. This is crucial for maintaining the rule of law, fairness in judicial proceedings, and the impartiality of judges.
Key Points:
Directive Principle: Not justiciable but fundamental in governance.
Goal: To maintain an independent and impartial judiciary.
Scope: Applies primarily to lower judiciary (subordinate courts).
Relevance: Helps in building a system of checks and balances.
Important Case Laws:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Importance: The Supreme Court held that judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Although Article 50 is not enforceable, its spirit was upheld as essential.
2. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (2000)
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1296
The Supreme Court reiterated that executive authorities cannot interfere with judicial functioning and must respect the separation mandated by Article 50.
3. Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Sheth (1977)
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 2328
Though the case primarily dealt with judicial transfers, it emphasized the necessity of judicial independence and non-interference by the executive.
4. All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1992)
Citation: AIR 1992 SC 165
The Supreme Court emphasized uniform service conditions, independence of subordinate judiciary, and separation from executive control.
Implementation Status:
The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) reforms and judicial reforms in various states have implemented this principle to a large extent.
In Union Territories, judicial magistrates often perform both executive and judicial functions, which still raises concerns under Article 50.
Conclusion:
While Article 50 is not enforceable, it serves as a constitutional guidepost to preserve the independence of the judiciary, especially at the lower levels. Courts have consistently upheld its spirit through judgments, reinforcing the need for separation of powers in a democratic setup.
RELATED Blog
0 comments