Judiciary of India
|This article is part of a series on|
|Judiciary of India|
|Law of India|
The Indian Judiciary is partly a continuation of the British legal system established by the British in the mid-19th century based on a typical hybrid legal system known as the Common Law System, in which customs, precedents and legislative are all components of the law. The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of the country. There are various levels of judiciary in India – different types of courts, each with varying powers depending on the tier and jurisdiction bestowed upon them. They form a strict hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, with the Supreme Court of India at the top, followed by High Courts of respective states with district judges sitting in District Courts and Magistrates of Second Class and Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the bottom. Courts hear criminal and civil cases, including disputes between individuals and the government. The Indian judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branches of government according to the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India
On 26 January 1950, the day India's constitution came into force, the Supreme Court of India was formed in Delhi. The inauguration took place in the Princess Chamber in the Parliament building complex which also housed both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha, also known as the Council of States and the House of the People, respectively. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow its creation, until the Supreme Court of India acquired its own building in 1958.
The inaugural proceedings were simple, but impressive. They began at 9.45 am when the Judges of the Federal Court – Chief Justice HJ Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and Sudhi Ranjan Das – took their seats. In attendance were the chief justices of the high courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Odisha, Assam, Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and Travancore-Cochin. Along with the Attorney General for India, Pankaj Singh Kushwah were present the advocates general of Bombay, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad and Madhya Bharat. Present too, were prime minister, other ministers, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign states, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors.
Taking care to ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were over and put under part of the record of the Supreme Court.
After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice. The Central Wing of the building is the Centre Beam of the Scales. In 1979, two New Wings– the East Wing and the West Wing were added to the complex. In all there are 15 Court Rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the Courts located in the Centre of the Central Wing.
The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges – leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978 and 26 in 1986. As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller Benches of two and three – coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.
The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges appointed by the President of India, as the sanctioned full strength. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a high court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an advocate of a high court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the president, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a high court as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court and for retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of that Court.
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. A judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the president passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the president in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.
The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of the land as established by Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution of India, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal court, guardian of the Constitution and the highest court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the composition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. Primarily, it is an appellate court which takes up appeals against judgments of the High Courts of the states and territories. However, it also takes writ petitions in cases of serious human rights violations or any petition filed under Article 32 which is the right to constitutional remedies or if a case involves a serious issue that needs immediate resolution. The Supreme Court of India had its inaugural sitting on 28 January 1950, and since then has delivered more than 24,000 reported judgments.
There are 24 High Courts at the State level. Article 141 of the Constitution of India mandates that they are bound by the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court of India by precedence. These courts have jurisdiction over a state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories. Below the High Courts are a hierarchy of subordinate courts such as the civil courts, family courts, criminal courts and various other district courts. High courts are instituted as constitutional courts under Part VI, Chapter V, Article 214 of the Indian Constitution.
The High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in the state along with District Courts which are subordinate to the High courts. However, High courts exercise their original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the courts subordinate to the high court in the state are not competent (not authorised by law) to try such matters for lack of pecuniary, territorial jurisdiction. High courts may also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters if so designated specifically in a state or Federal law. e.g.: Company law cases are instituted only in a high court.
However, primarily the work of most High Courts consists of Appeals from lower courts and writ petitions in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Jurisdiction is also original jurisdiction of High Court. The precise territorial jurisdiction of each High Court varies.
Judges in a high court are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of High Court and the governor of the state. The number of judges in a court is decided by dividing the average institution of main cases during the last five years by the national average, or the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that High Court, whichever is higher.
The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in the country, established on 2 July 1862. High courts which handle a large number of cases of a particular region, have permanent benches (or a branch of the court) established there.
The District Courts of India are established by the State governments in India for every district or for one or more districts together taking into account the number of cases, population distribution in the district. They administer justice in India at a district level. These courts are under administrative control of the High Court of the State to which the district concerned belongs. The decisions of District court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the concerned High court.
The district court is presided over by one District Judge appointed by the state Government. In addition to the district judge there may be number of Additional District Judges and Assistant District Judges depending on the workload. The Additional District Judge and the court presided have equivalent jurisdiction as the District Judge and his district court. The district judge is also called "Metropolitan session judge" when he is presiding over a district court in a city which is designated "Metropolitan area" by the state Government. The district court has appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts situated in the district on both civil and criminal matters. Subordinate courts, on the civil side (in ascending order) are, Junior Civil Judge Court, Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Senior Civil Judge Court (also called sub-court). Subordinate courts, on the criminal side (in ascending order) are, Second Class Judicial Magistrate Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
They were recognized through the 1888 Madras Village Court Act, then developed (after 1935) in various provinces and (after 1947) Indian states. The model from the Gujarat State (with a judge and two assessors) was used from the 1970s onwards. In 1984 the Law Commission recommended to create Nyaya Panchayats in rural areas with laymen ("having educational attainments"). The 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act have foreseen 5,000 mobile courts in the country for judging petty civil (property cases) and criminal (up to 2 years of prison) cases. However, the Act has not been enforced properly, with only 151 functional Gram Nyayalayas in the country (as of May 2012) against a target of 5000 such courts. The major reasons behind the non-enforcement includes financial constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.
|This section requires expansion. (June 2012)|
According to the World Bank, "although India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary" A functioning judiciary is the guarantor of fairness and a powerful weapon against corruption. But people's experiences fall far short of this ideal. Corruption in the judiciary goes beyond the bribing of judges. Court personnel are paid off to slow down or speed up a trial, or to make a complaint go away. Judges are also subject to pressure from above, with legislators or the executive using their power to influence the judiciary, starting with skewed appointment processes. "Judges appointing judges has become a total failure and it is become like a club membership", opines former judge of the Madras High Court Justice Chandru.
Citizens are often unaware of their rights, or resigned, after so many negative experiences, to their fate before a corrupt court. Court efficiency is also crucial, as a serious backlog of cases creates opportunities for demanding unscheduled payments to fast-track a case.
Indian courts have large backlogs. For instance, the Delhi High Court has a backlog of 466 years according to its chief justice. This is despite the average processing time of 4 minutes and 55 seconds in the court. In Uttam Nakate case, it took two decades to solve a simple employment dispute. However it need to be mentioned that the concept of backlogs doesn't describe the actual reason for so many cases lying in the courts. Rather the term "backlog" has been misused and the term "pendency" is the right word for describing the large number of cases pending in the courts today. As could be understood, the largest number of cases that are actually pending in the Indian Courts are that of minor Motor Vehicle Cases, petty crimes such as stealing, abusing, insult, slap, etc. It is an established fact which the Govt. of India accepts that there is 40% shortage of judicial staff. Opposition and ruling party's corrupt politicians profit from the delays in the system.
On 12 January 2012, a Supreme Court bench said that people's faith in judiciary was decreasing at an alarming rate, posing a grave threat to constitutional and democratic governance of the country. It acknowledged some of the serious problems such as –
- Large number of vacancies in trial courts,
- Unwillingness of lawyers to become judges,
- Failure of the apex judiciary in filling vacant HC judges posts.
It wanted to seek answers from the government on amicus curiae's suggestion that access to justice must be made a constitutional right and consequently the executive must provide necessary infrastructure for ensuring every citizen enjoyed this right. It also wanted the Government of India to detail the work being done by the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms.
In October 2012 the BBC reported on the case of Mohammed Idrees, a Pakistani who was held under Indian police control for approximately 13 years for overstaying his 15-day visa by 2–3 days after seeing his ill parents in 1999. Much of the 13 years was spent in prison waiting for a hearing, and more time was spent homeless or living with generous families. Both states denied him citizenship, leaving him stateless. The BBC linked these problems to the political atmosphere caused by the Kashmir conflict. There were many similar cases where espionage had been charged against non-spies for trivial crimes like overstaying visas or minor trespass, and hundreds of ordinary citizens held in prison by both India and Pakistan. The Indian People's Union for Civil Liberties decried his mistreatment. The Indian Human Rights Law Network told the BBC that the cause was "officials in the home department", including the slow court system, and called the case a "miscarriage of justice, a shocking case".
Corruption is rampant in India's courts. According to Transparency International, judicial corruption in India is attributable to factors such as "delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws". Most disturbing is the fact that corruption has reached the highest judicial forum i.e. Supreme Court of India. Some notable cases include:
- In December 2009, noted social activist, campaigner for judicial accountability and a Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan in response to the notice of contempt issued by the Supreme Court (for his interview to a news magazine in which he had said, "out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt"), filed an affidavit standing by his earlier comments saying: "It is My Honest And Bonafide Perception". Later in September 2010, he submitted a supplementary affidavit in which he submitted evidence to back his allegations. In November 2010, former Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan echoed Prashant Bhushan's claim saying: "It is my firm belief that there is a lot of corruption in judiciary. I am saying the same thing which Prashant Bhushan had said. The question of apology does not arise. I will rather prefer to go to jail. The judiciary cannot be cleansed unless the matter is brought into the public domain".
- In June 2011, a very widely respected former Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma echoed these views saying that "certain individuals with doubtful integrity were elevated within the higher judiciary" He cited the case of Justice M. M. Punchhi, whose impeachment had been sought by the campaign for judicial accountability. Justice Verma said he was willing to permit the allegations to be probed but the political executive refused to allow this. Justice Verma further explained, "Because the allegations, if proved, were serious and therefore they required to be investigated, so that one could know whether they were true or not." He acknowledged that Justice Punchhi was later elevated to CJI despite facing "serious allegations". Justice Verma also talked about another former CJI K G Balakrishnan's continuance as National Human Rights Commission chairman. Justice Verma said, "He should have demitted long back and if he doesn't do it voluntarily, the government should persuade him to do that, otherwise, proceed to do whatever can be done to see that he demits office."
- In November 2011, a former Supreme Court Justice Ruma Pal slammed the higher judiciary for what she called the seven sins. She listed the sins as:
- Turning a blind eye to the injudicious conduct of a colleague
- Hypocrisy – the complete distortion of the norm of judicial independence
- Secrecy – the fact that no aspect of judicial conduct including the appointment of judges to the High and Supreme Court is transparent
- Plagiarism and prolixity – meaning that very often SC judges lift whole passages from earlier decisions by their predecessors and do not acknowledge this – and use long-winded, verbose language
- Self Arrogance – wherein the higher judiciary has claimed crass superiority and independence to mask their own indiscipline and transgression of norms and procedures
- Professional arrogance – whereby judges do not do their homework and arrive at decisions of grave importance ignoring precedent or judicial principle
- Nepotism – wherein favors are sought and dispensed by some judges for gratification of varying manner.
- In 2011, Soumitra Sen, former judge at the Kolkata High Court became the first judge in the India to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha for misappropriation of funds.
|This section requires expansion. (June 2012)|
E-Courts Mission Mode Project
The E-courts project was established in the year 2005. According to the project, all the courts including taluk courts will get computerised. As per the project in 2008, all the District courts were initialised under the project. In 2010, all the District court were computerised. The entry of back log case has started. The IT department had one system officer and two system assistants in each court. They initiated the services in the Supreme Court in June 2011. The case lists and the judgements of most district courts are available in http://lobis.nic.in. in http://judis.nic.in is used to connect all High Courts and Supreme Court judgements and cause list. These websites are updated daily by a technical team. Now the establishment work is going on taluk courts.
The project also includes producing witnesses through video conferencing. Filing cases, proceedings, and all other details will be in computers. Each district court contains 1 system officer and 2 system assistants. This technical manpower is involved in training the staff, updating web sites.
Judicial Service Centre
This is a part of e-court project. The judicial service centres are available in all court campus. The Public as well as the advocates can walk in directly and ask for the case status, stage and next hearing dates. This service is provided for free.
The first jury trial decided by an English jury in India happened in Madras (today Chennai) in 1665, for which Ascentia Dawes (probably a British woman) was charged by a grand jury with the murder of her slave girl, and a petty jury, with six Englishmen and six Portuguese, found her not guilty. With the development of the East India Company empire in India, the jury system was implemented inside a dual system of courts: In Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay), there were Crown Courts and in criminal cases juries had to judge British and European people (as a privilege) and in some cases Indian people; and in the territories outside the Presidency Towns (called "moffussil"), there were Company Courts (composed with Company officials) without jury to judge most of the cases implying indigenous people.
After the Crown Government of India (Raj) adopted the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (1861, amended in 1872, 1882, 1898), the criminal jury was obligatory only in the High Courts of the Presidency Towns; elsewhere, it was optional and rarely used. According sections 274 and 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jury was composed from 3 (for smaller offences judged in session courts) to 9 (for severe offences judges in High Courts) men; and when the accused were European or American, at least half of the jurors had to be European or American men.
The jury found no place in the 1950 Indian Constitution, and it was ignored in many Indian states. The Law Commission recommended its abolition in 1958 in its 14th Report. Jury trials were abolished in India by a very discrete process during the 1960s, finishing with the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is still in force today.
It has been argued that the 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge and were susceptible to media and public influence, was the reason. A study by Elisabeth Kolsky argues that many "perverse verdicts" were delivered by white juries in trial of "European British subjects" charged with murder, assault, confinement of Indians.
- Judicial delay may become a thing of the past
- National policy and action plan for implementation of IT in the indian judiciary
- Has India failed because of its Judicial System?
- Judiciary in India – Victim or Culprit?
- Access to Justice For Marginalised People In India
- Use Of Software Can Curb Bench Hunting In India And Increase Disposal Of Cases Upto 25%
- Practice Directions For Electronic Filing (E-Filing) In The High Court Of Delhi
- e-courts in India still a distant dream
- History. Supreme Court of India. Retrieved on 2012-07-15.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India Dr. Durga Das Basu Sameer Ahmed
- Check Court Judgements (JUDIS) Government of India website.
- "District Courts of India – official website". Retrieved 16 March 2012.
- "CrPc Section 8 – Metropolitan areas". http://indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
- Jean-Louis Halpérin (25 March 2011). "Lay Justice in India". École Normale Supérieure.
- Mohapatra, Dhananjoy (22 May 2012). "Funds crunch, lukewarm response mar Gram Nyayalayas". Times of India. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
- "Governance in India". worldbank.org. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- ""Never be afraid. Ultimately, you can’t die every day." - Justice (Retd) Chandru of the Madras High Court". http://barandbench.com/. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
- "Transparency International Annual Report 2010". Transparency International. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Supreme Court chides itself, govt for judicial backlog". Times News Network. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- "Reforms could see disposal of cases in three years". The Hindu. 24 June 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- "Government sets up National Mission for Justice Delivery". First Post. 2 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- Your World: The Nowhere Man, Rupa Jha, 21 October 2012, BBC (retr 2012 10 20) (Program link:The Nowhere Man)
- Praful Bidwai. "INDIA: Legal System in the Dock".
- "'My Honest And Bonafide Perception'". outlook india. 9 December 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Six corrupt CJIs named by Prashant Bhushan". canarytrap.in. 6 October 2010. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Shanti Bhushan makes news again". Bar & Bench. 11 November 2010. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Wrong people sometimes elevated to higher judiciary: Ex-CJI Verma". times of india. 27 June 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Former Indian Supreme Court Justice Examines Corruption in the Judiciary". Fair Observer. 18 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
- "Judiciary stares at morality crisis". India Today. 12 January 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-17.
- "NIC Project Monitoring System". 24 August 2011. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
- "Electronic Courts In India, E-Courts In India, E-Judiciary In". E-Courts Consultancy And Training Centre Of India. 26 March 2012. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
- "Access to Justice For Marginalised People In India". E-Courts In India And E-Judiciary In India. 7 June 2014. Retrieved 23 August 2014.