Introduction

Intrinsically, India is a republican country that is organised as a federation with a parliamentary democracy. Similar to the United Kingdom, the President serves as the head of state in name only; in contrast, the Prime Minister is the de facto executive, or real head of the government. The Constitution of India establishes a federal system of governance with two tiers of government: the national and regional levels. 

The Constitution grants the national government, sometimes known as the central government, and the state governments supreme power within their domains. The Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the legislature, and the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament, are the two chambers that make up the bicameral system of government that the Indian Constitution's founders embraced. 

An essential component of federalism, the Indian federal Constitution also creates an autonomous judicial system headed by the Supreme Court of India. The Indian judicial system serves as the constitution's last arbiter and protector. It settles disputes between states and has the authority to declare unconstitutional any legislation passed by the federal or state legislatures. The writers of the Constitution recognised the need for a robust and independent judiciary when they adopted the largest written Constitution in history. They wished to guarantee the survival of democracy in the nation.

Structure of Indian Judiciary

The Indian Constitution established a unified, integrated legal system for its citizens, with the High Courts sitting below the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court at the top. As the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court is the exclusive mediator in cases between the federal government, individual states, and states themselves. It settles these conflicts within its original purview. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate Court. Several lower courts, including District Courts, Panchayat Courts, Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, and a lot more, are located under a High Court in this integrated structure. The Government of India Act 1935 provided the judicial system's framework, which the Indian Constitution's framers approved. In addition to bringing about jurisdictional unification, this hierarchical judiciary system has produced a one judicial hierarchy for the whole country. The judiciary's foremost duty is to ensure that the nation's governance functions flawlessly. The Indian judiciary is the Constitution's defender and custodian. The judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding Indian citizens' constitutional rights and democratic freedoms. The judiciary can advise the federal government and state governments on a range of matters in its capacity as a defender of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has the authority of issuing any order necessary to guarantee complete justice to every person falling under the jurisdiction of India, as stipulated in Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. 

Conceptualisation of Good Governance 

“Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interest, exercise their political rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.”

The United Nations Development Programme 1997

The process by which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social research for development" is the definition of governance provided by the World Bank in its 1992 publication "Governance and Development." A government that effectively carries out its obligations is said to be practising good governance. A legitimate and accountable administration would uphold the rule of law in society and safeguard citizens' fundamental rights. This is what is meant by good governance. The government would guarantee a fair society that is both socially and economically inclusive for its people. Two crucial components of excellent governance are representation of the people and stability of the government; they guarantee the welfare of the populace and speedup economic growth and advancement. A government must be transparent in order for us to perceive it as good governance. A well-run government would provide a wealth of opportunities for interested parties. Here, the government informs its citizens of everything it knows about governance, and the citizens notify the government of their ideas and plans. People take part in the process of establishing policies in this way. 

Since the definition of good governance is so individualised, it is likely to differ from person to person based on personal ethics and values. Governance examines the assessment of a nation's governance. Its goal is to analyse decision-making procedures, their quality, their transparency, and other associated matters to participate in the decision-making process on behalf of their nation.  Additionally, it helps to distinguish between the group ruling's actual and assumed self-understanding and their actual role in the suffering or luxury of its subjects. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific have identified eight key elements of good governance: accountability, transparency, responsiveness, equity and inclusivity, responsiveness, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.

It is impossible to put good governance into words. It depends not only on the government operating correctly but also on when all of its branches, including the private People, groups, and non-governmental organisations, would only collaborate in such cases. Achieving good governance is possible. The institution of governance is uneasy with itself. The concept of good governance varies between nations owing to variations in their respective administrative, political, cultural, and economic contexts. However, achieving accountability, openness, responsiveness, and citizen freedom to participate in politics would be the same ultimate goal. 

Good Governance is the process of governance whereby the government raises the standard of living for the populace by establishing and supplying the needs of life, ensuring member security, and offering chances for individual development. It would guarantee the continuation of an accountable legal system that administers justice in a way that is impartial, fair, and significant. Every community expects its government to live up to its word and establish an egalitarian environment that fosters personal development. The allocation of public resources by the government would be subject to complete accountability to the people. 

Several requirements for good governance include:

a. A country's attitude must be developed in order to achieve good governance. 

b. The government must work to close the gap between theory and practice, which includes keeping its promises to citizens made by the union and regional governments. 

c. In order to achieve good governance, civil servants and bureaucrats must act impartially and independently when performing their duties for the welfare of the populace.

d. Ethics and morality are the fundamental prerequisites for good governance that would ensure the government's longevity as well as the growth and progress of any nation.

e. The interests of the nation's citizens would be protected under effective governance.

f. A nation's ability to govern well depends on a number of crucial factors, including the Rule of Law, administrative reforms, the development of moral character in those in government, and transparency. 

The Indian Judiciary's Relationship with Good Governance

We are aware that good governance is defined as the following: it guarantees people's equality before the law, human rights, meaningful participation in the policy-making process, distinctions in political matters, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, provision of education, appropriate knowledge, political participation, justice, feasibility, and the promotion of ideologies that promote harmony, accountability, and the avoidance of intolerance. India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republican nation according to the Indian Constitution. 

The judiciary has expanded the meaning of these phrases numerous times because, as required by the Indian Constitution, all Indians are treated equally in front of the Court, including the Prime Minister of India and the general public. Maintaining equality before the law is the judiciary's duty; if this were to be compromised, public confidence in the Court would be completely undermined. The judiciary serves as a vehicle for achieving good governance by upholding the state's Rule of Law and safeguarding citizens' human rights through open, responsible, and transparent institutions and processes. The judiciary grants access to knowledge, information, health, education, official obligations, and other areas through its rulings and interpretations of the Constitution. In addition, the judiciary offers instructions for the application and enforcement of the law as well as remedies for unlawful damage that has been caused.

People place too much trust in the courts despite having elected representatives in place because they believe that the Court will provide them with the right justice if their elected government mistreats them. A number of court decisions, such as Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and the most recent liberalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, have set an example and altered the views of the judiciary, the government, and governance in general.

The Judiciary's function in India's good governance

The Indian Judiciary plays a significant role as a catalyst in the establishment of good governance. As an institution, the judiciary has a crucial role in upholding democratic norms, which in turn ensures good governance in our nation. Justice, equality, and freedom have all been firmly formulated throughout the nation, and this is solely due to the Indian judiciary's activist role in acting on its own initiative to uphold these ideals. Because the Constitution forbids the executive from having unrestricted power, there are constitutional limitations on the actions of the government. One of the requirements for good governance is this limitation on the power of the government, which would protect citizens' constitutional rights and liberties against the capricious actions of the state. It increases the accountability of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to the people of India. India has an abundance of laws, rules, regulations, and procedures; nonetheless, disagreements are resolved through the legal system. The Supreme Court has issued important rulings in every field that guarantee improved Indian administration. These include, but are not limited to, restrictions placed on the Parliament's ability to change fundamental rights, environmental concerns, police reform, electoral reform, and many more.

The Indian Constitution outlines six essential rights for its inhabitants, which are included in Articles 12 through 35. The Supreme Court of India has expanded its authority through judicial review in order to safeguard fundamental rights, as evidenced by a number of court cases. Regarding this, we might bring up Article 21, which was started by the Supreme Court to recognise people's fundamental human rights as their rights, even if such rights were not stated explicitly. In order to establish impartiality and fairness in the Indian judiciary, the same Article also incorporated logic. After some time, the Court rejected this harsh punishment in order to guarantee legal aid, simplify pre-trial bail restrictions, and create rights against custodian violence.

The Indian judiciary demonstrates its proactive approach towards safeguarding the fundamental rights of its populace. Article 21 protected citizens' personal liberty and the protection of their rights, which have since been expanded to include the rights to information, free and compulsory education under Article 21A, a healthy environment, and the ability to live with dignity and self-worth. Over the past 70 years, the Indian judiciary has consistently expanded on the scope of fundamental rights for human existence in order to safeguard individual liberties and rights while also promoting improved governance. It has been noted repeatedly that the Indian judiciary gives executive orders on law enforcement.

Regarding the environment, the legislature has passed several legislation aimed at enhancing and safeguarding our natural surroundings. To enable people to utilise natural resources, the state would place a strong emphasis on sustainable development. In this case, the judiciary conveys its concern about the implications of environmental contamination for both the current and the upcoming generations. The Indian judiciary also demonstrates its concern for the state's duty to safeguard public health and the environment by working to stop environmental damage.

Election procedures are another significant area in which the Indian Court contributes significantly to the advancement of improved government. Free and fair elections must be held by an impartial body in order for a democratic government to succeed. The Election Commission of India, an independent body, oversees, conducts, and controls elections in India. By its rulings and judicial pronouncements, the Court contributes significantly to preventing the likelihood of candidate abuse. Good governance is constantly threatened by the criminalisation of politics, which is why the judiciary implemented an electoral reform requiring candidates to reveal their past criminal histories. It would affect the choices that voters made while casting their ballots. Over the past 70 years, the judiciary has rendered numerous rulings pertaining to minorities' rights and education, which have furthered India's transition to good governance.

The basic structure theory, which limits the Parliament's ability to alter the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, is another crucial topic without which the conversation would fall short. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the First Amendment Act's constitutionality was contested. In order to pass various land laws, Parliament first amended the Indian Constitution by inserting Articles 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule. This was done because the government attempted to implement land reforms and abolish the Zamindary system after the Constitution was adopted, which raised questions about the constitutionality of the First Amendment Act. Since Article 13 states that all laws that conflict with any of the fundamental rights must be void, it was contested in this particular case.

The Indian Supreme Court declared in its ruling that regular laws and constitutional amendments are two distinct things. The Supreme Court of India interprets laws in this instance literally since the authors of the Constitution did not discuss constitutional modifications when they merely cited laws in Article 13. Therefore, a court cannot declare any changes void; only statutes may be deemed such. Because the First Constitutional Amendment Act was an amendment and not a statute, it was able to endure. The primary point of contention in this case was which Article—Article 13 or Article 368 - was stronger. The Supreme Court of India said in its decision that the Parliament has the authority to change basic rights by rewriting the Constitution. This indicates that the Indian Parliament now has complete amending authority from the judiciary. In the case of Shankari Prasad, the Court held that it might declare a statute invalid if it was enacted by the Parliament and did not comply with the Constitution. Regarding the amendments, however, the Court cannot declare them void because they are not stated in Article 13. As a result, the Supreme Court maintained Article 368's superiority over Article 13 in the Indian Constitution.

This instance had a significant effect on Indian politics, especially in the area of governance. In the case of Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court expressed its agreement in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, holding that the legislature has the authority to change any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights clause. In the 1967 case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court rendered a verdict that contradicted its previous ruling in the Shankari Prasad case. The Golaknath family had around 500 acres of land in Punjab, according to Henry and William Golaknath's origins. The Golaknath brothers were only allowed to retain 30 acres of land each under the Punjab Security and Land Tenure Act of 1953; the remaining land would be divided among field labourers in order to carry out various projects. However, as the freedom to own property was a fundamental right at the time, the law clearly infringed on that right. As a result, the Golaknath brothers appeared in court.

The main question at hand was whether the 17th constitutional amendment, which moved the Punjab Security and Land Tenure Act under the Ninth schedule, made it a law or not. And is it possible to modify fundamental rights? The Supreme Court held in this decision that Parliament could not change basic rights. Because of this ruling, fundamental rights are now considered to be inalienable. In addition, the Supreme Court declared that there is no distinction between a statute and an amendment, overturning its previous ruling in the Shankari Prasad case. However, the Court ruled that since the 17th constitutional amendment is legitimate, the laws listed in the Ninth Schedule are also legitimate. As a result, the land owned by the Golaknath brothers will be taken and divided among the field labourers. In this instance, the legislature's authority was limited by the judiciary. Numerous constitutional changes were enacted in response to the Golaknath case ruling. The ruling in the Golaknath case caused a national uproar. It was assumed that a number of government socialistic and welfare initiatives would be discontinued as a result of this ruling. The Indian Parliament enacted the 24th and 25th constitutional amendments in 1971 in response to this predicament. The purpose of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act was to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. Articles 13 and 368 were modified. It said that through the enactment of constitutional amendment legislation, Parliament might restrict or eliminate any of the essential rights. 

Through this amendment, the Parliament gains unrestricted authority to change any section of the Constitution, including the clauses found in Part III. Article 31C, which states that no law that attempts to apply the directive principles listed in Articles 31B and 31C shall be unconstitutional since it would infringe the fundamental rights mentioned in Articles 14, 19, and 31, was added by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act. In the famous case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the legitimacy of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act was contested. The head of Kerala's Hindu math, Edneer, Kesavananda Bharati, contested attempts by the Kerala government to put management constraints on the math under two Land Reforms Acts in 1970. 

In court, Kesavananda Bharati challenged this restriction. In this case, the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th constitutional amendment acts were questioned. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the validity of the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendment Acts, and Parliament has the power to alter basic rights. But the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution cannot be altered, and the Court has the power to uphold any amendment made to the Constitution, i.e., it has ruled that no clause can prevent judicial review. This specific case essentially preserved India's democracy by limiting the Parliament's ability to make amendments. 

Additionally, in this circumstance, the Constitution supersedes the legislative and the Court. Therefore, if a bill passed by the legislature or an executive action breaches any of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, it will be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Thus, the Indian Court plays a significant role in encouraging good governance in India and reducing the executive branch's tendency toward arbitrary actions. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Case, which took place in 1978, is another significant case in which the Supreme Court plays a significant role in ensuring the rights of the people that are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Article 21, which states that no one may be deprived of their life or personal liberty other than in accordance with the legal process, was contested in this specific case. The method established by legislation means that a law passed by the legislature or Parliament may only be enforceable if the proper method has been adhered to strictly.

The case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India arose when the Regional Passport Office in New Delhi requested that Maneka Gandhi surrender her travel passport within seven days in the public interest in accordance with Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967. Maneka Gandhi questioned the rationale for the specific order's issuance, and the authorities refused to provide an explanation for the directive they had issued. In answer, Mrs Gandhi sent the Supreme Court a writ. The cases' primary concerns were whether the freedom to travel overseas is protected by the right to liberty under Article 21. The second question was, Does the Passport Act provide a process or not? Whether the Passport Act breaches Articles 14, 19(1) (a), and 21 was the third question. Fourth, is the right to free speech and expression only applicable within Indian borders? As a result of the Passport Act's disregard for the legal process and its unconstitutionality, the case resulted in its nullification. Subsequently, the Court declared that Article 21 of the Constitution grants the right to travel. The Court further contended that if a law restricts someone's freedom, it must also comply with Articles 14 and 19. This indicates that although a person's freedom may be restricted in some circumstances, it must still meet the requirements of Articles 14 and 19. A novel doctrine known as "post-decisional hearing," which permits the hearing of a topic after the action is taken, was developed in the Maneka Gandhi case. In the aforementioned case, the Indian Apex Court thoroughly examined and interpreted Article 21 before reaching the conclusion that a person's right to life and personal liberty may only be taken away by the state in circumstances where the claims made in accordance with the Constitution are just, reasonable, and equitable. Thus, it might be claimed that the "due process of law" doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in this particular case. The Supreme Court upholds good governance and safeguards the rights of Indian citizens in this way.

Since the introduction of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concept in the 1980s, the Supreme Court has been actively involved in advancing good governance. The PILs address a wide range of topics, including environment, road safety, terrorism, pollution, telecommunications, and construction dangers. Any matter on which government laws are unable to keep up may be the subject of a PIL. It is a tool that the public has at their disposal to reveal government corruption. The Public Interest Litigations were used to expose the 2G, 3G, and coal scams. It is an essential tool for enacting social change and preserving the nation's equality. It allows those whose rights are denied by the executive branch to access fundamental human rights. A PIL pertaining to environmental issues was M. C. Mehta v. Union of India. The Bhopal gas leak in December 1984 was followed by the case involving the oleum gas leak from the Sri Ram Food and Fertilizers Limited Complex in Delhi. Owing to an oil spill, the Delhi District Magistrate issued an order for Sri Ram. Due to its exposure to toxic and dangerous chemicals, the company has decided to cease operations and relocate from Delhi. Following their decision to halt production and move to a second, a leak occurred. 

At this moment, a lawyer named M. C. Mehta filed a PIL demanding compensation and prohibiting the reopening of the closed establishment. Once more, Article 21 was called into question in this case, which concerned the right to life guaranteed by that Article. In this instance, the question was whether Sri Ram Company, which operates in a sector that is important to public health and has the potential to have an impact on people's lives, might be subject to Article 21. Secondly, does Sri Ram Company fall within Article 12, which defines what a state is? The next question was: What is the liability measure? According to the Court's ruling in the case, the business must pay for any accidents, which implies that it would be held accountable for any incidents that occur. The Court further declared that a larger and more successful corporation should receive a higher sum of compensation. Since Sri Ram Company is a state-run subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mill the Court declined to make a determination about the company's authority under Article 12. If the company is an Article 12 "State," then the state authority is in violation of the fundamental rights of the people. The Court did not determine whether or not the matter fell under Article 12 because there is a specific investigative apparatus in place for such situations. As a result, no specialised equipment will be used for the study. As a result of the case, the Supreme Court shut down several industrial businesses and only permitted them to reopen when the Ganga basin's pollution control measures were implemented. 

Bhanwari Devi filed a PIL against sexual harassment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court defined sexual harassment at work in this decision and established criteria for handling it. Additionally, the Court acknowledges that sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, and 21's fundamental rights. Each of these cases demonstrates how the Court acts as a link to fill the gap left by incompetent leadership.

The Supreme Court's September 2018 decision to decriminalise Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, in which it upheld the rights of the LGBT community, is another significant ruling. According to Section 377, anyone who willingly engages in sexual relations with a man, woman, or animal in violation of the natural order faces punishment. An NGO called the NAZ Foundation petitioned the Delhi High Court in 2001, arguing that Section 377 ought to be ruled to be unlawful. Section 377 was declared unlawful by the Delhi High Court in 2009 because of its violations of Articles 14, 15, and 21. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2013 case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation that Section 377 is valid and should remain in the nation's statute book. The Supreme Court acknowledged transgender people as a third gender in the National Legal Services Authority ruling in 2014; however, homosexuality remained illegal in the United States even after this ruling. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court referred the case to a constitutional bench in February 2016. The Court ruled in this historic decision that homosexuality is not illegal. We now have the non-retrogression of rights principle, thanks to the ruling. The Court's compelling conclusion is that the freedom to love is unalienable, and it sends a strong message that societal morality cannot supersede constitutional morality. The Indian people's fundamental rights are thus once again protected by the Supreme Court. 

A crucial instrument for monitoring administration performance and guaranteeing them responsibility when actions deviate from the Constitution is judicial review. The judicial review power can be defined as the judiciary's ability to amend and then reevaluate the legality of an executive order or a statute issued by the legislature. This suggests that any legislation that contradicts with the Constitution is void and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. By refraining from arbitrary measures taken to the advantage of the legislative and executive branches, it maintains the effectiveness of checks and balances. 

The Indian Court, through the use of PILs, judicial activism, and judicial review, is currently able to play a key role in promoting good governance. When a state election results in a hung assembly, the judiciary maintains judicial transparency by requiring political candidates to adhere to stricter disclosure requirements. In this case, the court issues rules requiring a ground test to establish the majority and guarantee the existence of a state government. Thus, it gives voters hope for excellent governance, which is why they cast their ballots for government. 

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary has been quite active and significant throughout the last 70 years in promoting growth, advancement, social change, and development within Indian society. The Indian judiciary, and in particular the Supreme Court of India, continues to play a significant role in almost every facet of society. From environmental issues to social justice issues, from corruption to fundamental rights, the Supreme Court continues to maintain its close watch and improve the lot of the Indian people. The judiciary's catalytic function validates the nation's sound governance. There is no denying that, in a democratic democracy such as India, the judiciary continues to plays a vital role in advancing better governance. However, the judiciary alone cannot guarantee good governance in India; accountability and responsibility from the legislative, executive branch, business sector, and Indian citizens themselves are necessary for this to happen, as the Indian legal system has made them accountable. Only when all parts of government collaborate and carry out their designated responsibilities can effective governance be realised. 

References

1. Anuradha, K. The Role of Indian Judiciary in Promoting Good Governance. Legal Service India, available at:

2. www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-599-the-role-of-indian-judiciary-in-promoting-goodgevernance.html

3. Basu, D. D. (2015). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Lexis Nexis Publication

4. Fadia, B. L. (2000). Indian Government and Politics. Agra: Sahitya Bhawan Publications, pp. 403-412, 414

5. Ghosh, A. Indian Judiciary as a Catalystic Agent of Social Change. Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies (JHSSS), Vol. 2, Issue 3, May 2020, pp. 80-85

6. Gyong, J. E., Good Governance and Accountability in a Democracy. European Scientific Journal, Vol. 7, No. 26, December Edition.

7. Hawaldar, A. H. and Chetankumar, T. M. Judicial Accountability and Good Governance in a Democracy. JSSJLSR- Online Journal, Vol. VI, Issue I.

8. Kashyap, S. C. (2007) Our Constitution: An Introduction to India’s Constitution and Constitutional Law. New Delhi, National Book Trust.

9. Laxmikanth, M. (2017) Indian Polity: For Civil Service Examination, 5th Edition. McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited, p. 175, 217

10. Pylee, M. V. (2008) India’s Constitution. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.”Sabharwal, J. Y. K. Role of Judiciary in Good Governance, available at: www.highcourtchd.gov.in

11. Tongia, K. Role of Judiciary in Promoting Good Governance. Fast Forward Justice’s Law Journal, Vol. II, Issue. III

12. Zargar, T. A. and Sheikh, M. A. Good Governance in India: Challenges and Prospects. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), Vol. 23, Issue 2, February 2018, pp. 60-64