What are the different ways in which the judiciary is organised?

Or

What do you know about the different methods of the appointment of the judges which are prevalent in the different countries of the world?

Or

Describe the different modes of appointment of Judges in the Modern States.

Only those judges can remain independent who are appointed on the basis of merit. If the appointment of the judges are made unjustly or on recommendation, the judiciary can never remain independent. The judges will always remain under the influence of the appointing authority. There are three methods for making appointments of the judges, which are prevalent in the world.

Modes of the Appointment of the Judges:-

(a) Election by the People: In some States of U.S.A. and Switzerland this method has been adopted. But this method is considered defective. A popularly elected judge can never remain independent, impartial and honest. Laski says that of all the methods of appointment of judges the methods of popular election of judges is the most defective. Firstly, the people are not wise enough to judge the qualities of a person whom they elect, to be the judge. They cannot elect an honest and impartial judge. Secondly, the judge will be elected on the basis of political parties. The elected judges will always favour the political party which helped in his election and would disfavour those voters who opposed him. Thirdly, he cannot perform his duties sincerely because he will do everything to secure his re-election. Forthly, to get elected he will make use as so many corrupt practices. A person who indulges in mal-practices cannot become impartial, honest and sincere. A judge elected through popular election cannot deliever the goods properly.

(b) Election by the Legislature: In certain States the judges are elected by the Legislature of the State. This system prevails in the U.S.S.R., Switzerland and certain States of U.S.A. The judges elected in this way cannot be impartial and honest. The judges will remain under the influence of the political parties. This method is also not without defects.

(c) Appointment by the Executive: Appointment by the executive is most common and most satisfactory method for the choice of the judges. It prevails in Great Britain and the British dominions as well as in the Federal Government of U.S.A. and some States of U.S.A. and in India also though political considerations play a part in making the selection, when once appointed the judges are independent and are not under the influence of the executive. This method makes for the independence of the judiciary. The Executive is considered to be the best qualified agency for the appointment of trained and skilled lawyers to the post of the judges. The executive should appoint the judges in consultation with the Chief Justice or the Public Service Commission. A judge who is appointed on the basis of merit will always be impartial and independent.