In the UK, the term "government" refers to the executive branch. Outside that use, it encompasses the legislative, executive and judiciary power of a state. Wikipedia gives the following definition:
Government consists of the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and the system by which they are organized.
Judges are part of that by definition, even if there's some separation from the other components.
A court is an arm of the Kingdom of Spain, and a judge is a Kingdom employee. In US parlance, where the EFF is based, we would say the court is an arm of the government, and the judge is a government employee, thus this is a government action.
In European parlance, 'the government' often means the currently in-power group of legislative representatives, which causes much confusion in the US when we hear 'a new government was formed in X', or 'the government will be dissolved in Y'.
UK courts have had judicial independence since the Act of Settlement. Governments don't appoint judges - now via an independent panel since the Blair govt abolished the Lord Chancellor, but even then govts didn't have influence or appointing powers.
The courts quite often upset UK governments (of whichever party) when they strike down bad laws via judicial review, or by finding some aspect of government policy illegal.
If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.
Most people consider the legal system (i refuse to call any state run court a justice system) part of the government, it is the enforcement arm of the government
Executive, Legislative, Judicial, are the 3 general area's of a functioning government
In most (all?) democracies a court of law is a branch of Government. In the USA the judiciary is described as being co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. It's largely the same in the European Union and Westminster-style governments.
Is that really a meaningful distinction? The judiciary is part of the government, and the other parts are bound by its decisions. Honestly I don't know how judges in India are selected, but presumably it's subject to the same democratic checks as elsewhere (either because they are directly elected or because they are appointed by elected politicians). "The government" doesn't get off the hook just because it was a court that did the dirty work.
In the UK, the term "government" refers to the executive branch. Outside that use, it encompasses the legislative, executive and judiciary power of a state. Wikipedia gives the following definition:
Government consists of the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and the system by which they are organized.
Judges are part of that by definition, even if there's some separation from the other components.
reply