The book is meant to elucidate the concept of justice and its dictates in the various fields of life as well as the implications of injustice. Human rights, the rule of law and democracy are the offspring of justice. The Judiciary is the agent of justice, the persona of justice, trusted to uphold justice in the ever-changing circumstances of life. Of old, justice was perceived as encompassing all virtues. It has a pananthropic character charting the way for symmetry in life and the ascent of man. The book has a lego-philosophical character of interest to every anthropological and societal discipline.

The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court is aimed at anyone interested in the Australian judiciary today. It examines the impact of the individual on the judicial role, while exploring the collegiate environment in which judges must operate. This professional community can provide support but may also present its own challenges within the context of a particular court's relational dynamic and culture. The judge and the judiciary form the 'court', an institution grounded in a set of constitutional values that will influence how judges and the judiciary perform their functions. This collection brings together analysis of the judicial role that highlights these unique aspects, particularly in the Australian setting. Through the lenses of judicial leadership, diversity, collegiality, dissent, style, technology, the media and popular culture, it analyses how judges work individually and as a collective to protect and promote the institutional values of the court.

There can be no dispute that the judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court of India wield tremendous powers. However, power comes with a price which bestows huge responsibility and calls for strict adherence to dos and don'ts. This book builds upon this narrative and advocates that judges must be made accountable not only in respect of their personal conduct and integrity, but also in respect of the judicial verdicts they deliver. The work emphasizes that the need for judicial accountability has increased in recent times as the judiciary is, nowadays, performing not only judicial functions, but virtually executive functions also, for which the government is accountable to the people. The author, in particular, critically discusses Articles 141, 142, and 144, which make the Supreme Court the most powerful institution in the country, and Articles 32 and 136, which also confer wide powers on it. Using these powers, the apex court sometimes, unmindful of the budgetary and other vital implications, passes orders which are simply not implementable. For example, the intervention of the Supreme Court in the matter of the interlinking of rivers, a policy decision which falls clearly in the domain of the Executive. The book advocates the need for judicial accountability to save the institutions of justice from turning autocratic and narcissistic.

A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme CourtÑhow that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it. A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than Òpoliticians in robesÓÑtheir ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note. Mindful of the CourtÕs history, he suggests that the judiciaryÕs hard-won authority could be marred by reforms premised on the assumption of ideological bias. Having, as Hamilton observed, Òno influence over either the sword or the purse,Ó the Court earned its authority by making decisions that have, over time, increased the publicÕs trust. If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity. Breyer warns that political intervention could itself further erode public trust. Without the publicÕs trust, the Court would no longer be able to act as a check on the other branches of government or as a guarantor of the rule of law, risking serious harm to our constitutional system.

The impartial administration of justice and the accountability of government officials are two of the most strongly held American values. Yet these values are often in direct conflict with one another. At the national level, the U.S. Constitution resolves this tension in favor of judicial independence, insulating judges from the undue influence of other political institutions, interest groups, and the general public. But at the state level, debate has continued as to the proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. In this volume, constitutional scholar G. Alan Tarr focuses squarely on that debate. In part, the analysis is historical: how have the reigning conceptions of judicial independence and accountability emerged, and when and how did conflict over them develop? In part, the analysis is theoretical: what is the proper understanding of judicial independence and accountability? Tarr concludes the book by identifying the challenges to state-level judicial independence and accountability that have emerged in recent decades, assessing the solutions offered by the competing sides, and offering proposals for how to strike the appropriate balance between independence and accountability.

This book explores concrete situations in which judges are faced with a legislature and an executive that consciously and systematically discard the ideals of the rule of law. It revolves around three basic questions: What happen when states become oppressive and the judiciary contributes to the oppression? How can we, from a legal point of view, evaluate the actions of judges who contribute to oppression? And, thirdly, how can we understand their participation from a moral point of view and support their inclination to resist?

An assessment of how the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is significantly influencing the nation's laws and reinterpreting the Constitution includes in-depth analysis of recent rulings and their implications.