Judicial independence in the context of "Judicial system of China"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Judicial independence in the context of "Judicial system of China"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Judicial independence

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.

Different countries deal with the idea of judicial independence through different means of judicial selection, that is, choosing judges. One method seen as promoting judicial independence is by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, as it would ideally free them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests. This concept can be traced back to 18th-century England.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

Judicial independence in the context of Government of Japan

The Government of Japan is the central government of Japan. It consists of legislative, executive and judiciary branches and functions under the framework established by the Constitution of Japan. Japan is a unitary state, containing forty-seven administrative divisions, with the emperor as its head of state. His role is ceremonial and he has no powers related to the Government. Instead, it is the Cabinet, comprising the prime minister and the ministers of state, that directs and controls the government and the civil service. The Cabinet has the executive power and is formed by the prime minister, who is the head of government. The Prime Minister is nominated by the National Diet and appointed to office by the Emperor. The current cabinet is the Takaichi Cabinet, which is led by prime minister Sanae Takaichi, who assumed office on 21 October 2025. The country has had a Liberal Democratic minority government since 2025.

The National Diet is the legislature, the organ of the Legislative branch. The Diet is bicameral, consisting of two houses with the House of Councilors being the upper house, and the House of Representatives being the lower house. The members of both houses of the Diet are directly elected by the people, who are the source of sovereignty. The Diet is defined as the supreme organ of sovereignty in the Constitution. The Supreme Court and other lower courts make up the Judicial branch and have all the judicial powers in the state. The Supreme Court has ultimate judicial authority to interpret the constitution and the power of judicial review. The judicial branch is independent from the executive and the legislative branches. Judges are nominated or appointed by the Cabinet and never removed by the executive or the legislature except during impeachment.

↑ Return to Menu

Judicial independence in the context of Constitution of 1857

The Political Constitution of the Mexican Republic of 1857 (Spanish: Constitución Política de la República Mexicana de 1857), often called simply the Constitution of 1857, was the liberal constitution promulgated in 1857 by Constituent Congress of Mexico during the presidency of Ignacio Comonfort. Ratified on February 5, 1857, the constitution established individual rights, including universal male suffrage, and others such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms. It also reaffirmed the abolition of slavery, debtors' prisons, and all forms of cruel and unusual punishment such as the death penalty. The constitution was designed to guarantee a limited central government by federalism and created a strong national congress, an independent judiciary, and a small executive to prevent a dictatorship. Liberal ideals meant the constitution emphasized private property of individuals and sought to abolish common ownership by corporate entities, mainly the Catholic Church and indigenous communities, incorporating the legal thrust of the Lerdo Law into the constitution.

A number of articles were contrary to the traditional powers of the Catholic Church, such as the ending of Catholicism as official religion, the nationwide establishment of secular public education, the removal of institutional fueros (legal privileges), and the forced sale of Church property. Conservatives strongly opposed the enactment of the constitution, which polarized Mexican society. The Reform War (1858-1860) began as a result, with liberals winning on the battlefield over conservatives. The losing conservatives sought another way back into power, and their politicians invited Maximilian I of Mexico, a Habsburg, to establish a Mexican monarchy with the Church's support. The republican government-in-domestic-exile was headed by President Benito Juárez as the legitimate Mexican government under the constitution. With the ouster of the French and the defeat of the conservatives in 1867, the Restored Republic was again governed under the 1857 Constitution. The constitution was durable but its provisions not always followed in practice. It was revised in 1874 to create a Senate. It remained as Mexico's constitution until 1917 although many of its provisions ceased to be enforced.

↑ Return to Menu

Judicial independence in the context of Politics of India

The politics and government of India work within the framework of the country's Constitution, which was adopted on November 26, 1949, by the Constituent Assembly. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. India is a parliamentary secular democratic republic, described as a “sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic” in its constitution, in which the president of India is the head of state and first citizen of India and the Prime Minister of India is the head of government. It is based on the federal structure of government, although the word is not used in the Constitution itself. India follows the dual polity system, i.e. federal in nature, that consists of the central authority at the centre and states at the periphery. The Constitution defines the organizational powers and limitations of both central and state governments; it is well recognised, fluid (with the Preamble of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and principles of liberty, equality, justice, and fraternity, being rigid and to dictate further amendments to the Constitution) and considered supreme, i.e. the laws of the nation must conform to it. India is officially declared a secular and socialist state as per the Constitution.

There is a provision for a bicameral legislature consisting of an upper house, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), which represents the states of the Indian federation, and a lower house, the Lok Sabha (House of the People), which represents the people of India as a whole. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, which is headed by the Supreme Court. The court's mandate is to protect the Constitution, to settle disputes between the central government and the states, to settle inter-state disputes, to nullify any central or state laws that go against the Constitution and to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, issuing writs for their enforcement in cases of violation.

↑ Return to Menu

Judicial independence in the context of English law

English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures. The judiciary is independent, and legal principles like fairness, equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial are foundational to the system.

↑ Return to Menu

Judicial independence in the context of Judicial discretion

Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions.

However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, by binding precedent, or by a constitution, the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. In that case, the decision of the court may be ultra vires, and may sometimes be characterized as judicial activism.

↑ Return to Menu

Judicial independence in the context of Tyranny of the majority

Tyranny of the majority refers to a situation in majority rule where the preferences and interests of the majority dominate the political landscape, potentially sidelining or repressing minority groups and using majority rule to take non-democratic actions. This idea has been discussed by various thinkers, including John Stuart Mill in On Liberty and Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.

To reduce the risk of majority tyranny, modern democracies frequently have countermajoritarian institutions that restrict the ability of majorities to repress minorities and stymie political competition. In the context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body such as a bill of rights or supermajority clause have been used. Separation of powers or judicial independence may also be implemented.

↑ Return to Menu