Judicial Appointments And The Independence Of Judiciary: A Comparative Study Of The UK, USA And India
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 9, 2025
- 2 min read
Anjali Chauhan, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Introduction:
Judicial independence is the soul of constitutional democracy. The judiciary can only protect the principle of rule of law if judges are not influenced by political pressure, discrimination or coercion. A truly independent bench is necessary to safeguards constitutional norms, fundamental rights and democratic ideals are protected. One of the main factors that determines judicial independence is the structure of judicial appointments. The question of who appoint judges, the process of their appointment, and the safeguards to be taken to protect their independence directly shapes the confidence that people have in the judicial system. Different countries have created various appointment frameworks for appointing judges. These frameworks are structured to balance two conflicting interests: first, to maintain judicial independence by safeguarding judges from political influence; and second, to ensure judicial accountability through some through some element of democratic supervision. The methods of judicial appointment therefore distinguish based on constitutional evolution, political values and legal customs of each country.
In United Kingdom, for centuries the executive had stringent control over judicial appointments. Apprehensions about secrecy, heterogeneity, and political prejudice paved the way for reforms under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which instituted the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). The JAC enhanced transparency and merit-based selection in judicial appointments, but debates continued concerned to representation and heterogeneity.
In the United States, the appointment procedure is explicitly political. Under Article II of the U.S Constitution, the President has empowered to nominate judges of the Supreme courts and other federal courts, with affirmation by the Senate. While the procedure ensures democratic checks, it often leads to intense political conflict. Judicial appointments in the USA, regularly become battlegrounds for ideological conflict between political groups, raising doubts about whether the independence of judiciary can truly be preserved when judges are closely associated with political positions.
