Judiciary of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a series on
Judiciary of India

Law of India
Administration[show]
Civil courts[show]
Criminal courts[show]
Executive Court[show]
Legal profession[show]
Legal education[show]
v
t
e
The Indian Judiciary administers a common law system of legal
jurisdiction, in which customs, precedents and legislation, all codify the
law of the land. The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of
its jurisdiction which extends throughout the territory of the country. [i]
It has in part, inherited the legacy of the legal system established by the
then colonial powers and the princely states since the mid-19th century,
and has partly retained characteristics of practices from the ancient and
medieval times.[1]
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. Contents
[hide]
1 Courts
o 1.1 Supreme Court of India
o 1.2 High courts
o 1.3 District courts
o 1.4 Village courts
2 Issues
o 2.1 Pendency of cases
o 2.2 Judicial corruption

3 Reform
o 3.1 E-Courts Mission Mode Project
3.1.1 Judicial Service Centre
4 History
o 4.1 Jury trial
5 See also
6 Further reading
7 References
8 Notes
Courts[edit]
Supreme Court of India[edit]
Main article: 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. [2]
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 sit
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[3] 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.
High courts[edit]
Main article: High courts of India
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 theIndian 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.[citation needed]
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. For
litigants of remote regions, 'circuit benches' are set up, which work for
those days in a month when judges visit.[4]
District courts[edit]
Main article: District Courts of India
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. [5]
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. [6]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.[7]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.
Village courts[edit]
Village courts, called Lok Adalat (people's court) or Nyaya
Panchayat (justice of the villages), compose a system of alternative
dispute resolution.[8]
They were recognized through the 1888 Madras Village Court Act, then
developed (after 1935) in various provinces and (after 1947) Indian states.
[8]
The model from the Gujarat State (with a judge and two assessors) was
used from the 1970s onwards.[8] In 1984 the Law Commission
recommended to create Nyaya Panchayats in rural areas with laymen
("having educational attainments").[8] 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. [8] 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.[9] The major reasons behind the non-enforcement includes financial
constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials. [9]
Issues[edit]
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" [10] 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
complainant go away.
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.[11]
Indian Judiciary Issues have been depicted in several films, one of them
being a 2015, Marathi film, Court.

Pendency of cases[edit]
Indian courts have crores of pending cases.[12] For instance, the Delhi High
Court could take 466 years to clear all cases with it despite taking an
average of about five minutes to dispose each.[13] Traffic challans,
police challans and cheque bounce cases make up nearly half of all
pending cases.[14][15] It is an established fact which the Govt. of India
accepts that there is 40% shortage of judicial staff[citation needed].
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 of a large number of vacancies in trial
courts, unwillingness of lawyers to become judges, and the 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.[16][17][18]
There have been cases where ordinary citizens have been charged for
espionage while overstaying their visa or straying across the international
land or maritime boundary and languishing in prison for years due to the
slow redressal process.[19]
To reduce pendency, 'Fast-track courts', 'Evening courts/Morning courts'
were set up and have met with mixed success so far.[20][21] 'Mobile courts'
are being set up to bring 'justice at the doorsteps'[22] of litigants of farflung remote and backward rural areas.[23]
However, Lok Adalats an informal, alternative mechanism has been a
phenomenal success in tackling pendency, especially in pre-litigation
matters, settling fresh cases before they become full-blown disputes and
enter the courts.[24][25][26]
Judicial corruption[edit]
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".[27] Most disturbing is the fact that corruption has reached the
highest judicial forum i.e. Supreme Court of India. Some notable cases
include:
1. In December 2009, legal activist and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant
Bhushan stated in court, "out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half
have been corrupt"[28][29] In November 2010, former Law
Minister, Shanti Bhushan echoed Prashant Bhushan's claim.[30]
2. There have been allegations that judges with doubtful integrity were
elevated within the higher judiciary and campaigns held for their
impeachment.[31]
3. 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:
1. Turning a blind eye to the injudicious conduct of a colleague

2. Hypocrisy the complete distortion of the norm of judicial

independence
3. Secrecy the fact that no aspect of judicial conduct including
the appointment of judges to the High and Supreme Court is
transparent
4. 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 longwinded, verbose language
5. Self Arrogance wherein the higher judiciary has claimed crass
superiority and independence to mask their own indiscipline
and transgression of norms and procedures
6. Professional arrogance whereby judges do not do their
homework and arrive at decisions of grave importance ignoring
precedent or judicial principle
7. Nepotism wherein favors are sought and dispensed by some
judges for gratification of varying manner.[32]
4. 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.[33]
Reform[edit]
This section
requires expansion.
(June 2012)
E-Courts Mission Mode Project[edit]
Main article: E-courts In India
The E-courts project was established in the year 2005.[34] 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.
[citation needed]

Establishment of e-courts in India is in infancy stage. [35] Till the month of

October 2014 we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court of
India.[36]
Judicial Service Centre[edit]
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.[citation needed]

History[edit]
Jury trial[edit]
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.
[8]
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.[8]
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. [8] 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.[8]
The jury found no place in the 1950 Indian Constitution, and it was ignored
in many Indian states.[8] The Law Commission recommended its abolition in
1958 in its 14th Report.[8]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.[8]
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.[8]
Court is about loopholes in Indian judicial system, but didnt make it for
social cause: Chaitanya Tamhane
"Court" talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial system, but Chaitanya Tamhane
insists he didn't make it for a social cause.
0 1
Comments (1)

His National Award-winning film Court talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial
system, but director Chaitanya Tamhane insists he did not make the movie for a
social cause and it is a just an expression of his selfish interest.
His National Award-winning film Court talks about loopholes in the Indian judicial
system, but director Chaitanya Tamhane insists he did not make the movie for a
social cause and it is a just an expression of his selfish interest.
Chaitanya said the reason he took up Court was because he was fascinated by the
setting of a real courtroom and wanted to bring it on screen.
It is purely a selfish exploration. I am not doing this to put across a message or
change things. There is no intention of activism or bringing about a social change. If
something like this happens as a by-product, that is another thing and it is not in my
control. But personally for me, it is a way of my expression. In the process I get
educated too and my knowledge gets fine tuned. I made the film because I liked the
story, Chaitanya told PTI.
The filmmakers journey of making the multi-lingual movie started from his curiosity
about what happens inside a courtroom and and when he visited one, his notion
was shattered.
I am always fascinated by the setting or a profession. Characters and stories come
much later. In case of Court, I started wondering what it must be like to go to a
courtroom. I went to a magistrate and session court in Mumbai and I was fascinated
by it because it was not at all the way I had imagined. The most intense decisions
were taken with an air of casualness, or sometimes the lawyers were not prepared
or
there would be a missing victim. There was a sense of chaos and sometimes time
would slow down, he said.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

The film draws many real-life influences but the director clarifies that there are only
references and the setting is purely fictional.
It is not inspired by any one incident but is based on several true cases. I have
taken the reference but the characters and story are fictional. You might find one or
two similarities here and there because essentially I am inspired by some real-life
cases but there is no direct reference to any real person. I came across the case of
cultural activist Jiten Marandi in Jharkhand. He was falsely accused in a bomb blast.
The suspect was some other Jiten Marandi but because they could not find him,
they arrested this guy and he was sentenced to death. This case took me to other
activists and more cases, Chaitanya said.
The filmmaker said one of the biggest challenges of making the movie was to recreate a courtroom, especially because everyone depended on their memory and
had no support from pictures or any videos.
You cant take a picture or a video in a courtroom, forget shooting. So, a lot of us
spent time in courts, secretly jotting down notes, carefully observing all details.
The production designer and art designer would be there too and then creating all
that on our set.
So, that was a big challenge- to get the details right because every other location
in the film is a real location. Another important thing was to not get oppressed by
the very same technicalities, details of a court session because ultimately I was
constructing a narrative, the director said.
Court is releasing tomorrow in India, majorly in Maharashtra and in some
metropolitan cities.
When asked why the makers went with a less number of screens, Chaitanya said,
120-130 screens is still a very wide release for an independent, arthouse film.
Trade is very ruthless about such things. For them even this is a lot. The idea is to
grow. So, we intend to start in a limited manner but grow organically.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/court-isabout-loopholes-in-indian-judicial-system-but-didnt-make-it-for-social-causechaitanya-tamhane/#sthash.vRkoK3sx.dpufWhat are the loopholes in the
Indian judicial system, that can now be exploited by the lawyers of Salman
Khan to keep him out of jail for another 20-30 years?
Re-Ask
Follow2
7 Answers

Sonia Chauhan, Qualified Lawyer.

Sonia has 60+ answers in Law.
Oh, well.
Here's my two bits on the Salman matter.
The Sessions Court awarded Salman a sentence. That's fine. Salman got bail. That's
fine too. Here's what I found odd about the whole thing.

Generally, when a criminal sentence is handed to a person ~ he goes to Jail. From

Jail, he applies for bail. He does or doesn't get it. However, Salman got his bail
within a few hours of having received his sentence. A bench at the High Court
heard his case in the evening (I'm surprised!) and immediately gave him
interim/extended bail. That's odd. When you get a criminal sentence, you go to
jail. Atleast for a day. Come on.
Suspension of sentence is generally applied for once the convicted undergoes
atleast one-third of his/her sentence. Salman's case is an exception here as well. He
served no time on that Sessions Court order and managed to actually get
it suspended.
Here is Salman's suspension order ~ Page on bombayhighcourt.nic.in
Now, I'll answer your question.
1. The suspension order states that the appeal will be heard expeditiously. In the
Indian judicial system, every adjective is subjective. What is expeditious in my eyes
may not be so for you. And vice-versa. See what I mean?
2. It also says that the appeal will be heard finally in July 2015. He has set a timelimit on it. But this could also be gotten out of - stating reasons ranging from "in the
interest of justice" , "for securing importance documents for just and substantial
reasons" to "for reasons of natural justice", etc.
Seeing the lame-ass reasons upon which the suspension has been granted (read the
order to know more), they could hold off the arguments for any given period of
time.
3. The Judge could get scared and transfer the case. This means, it would then be
listed before another Judge, who would have a different opinion on the case
altogether. The proceedings could get so muddled up that they could be referred to
a Division Bench (two-judge panel), hence, wasting more time.
Once, a matter is admitted (like this one) ~ it could take years for the matter to be
fully argued and heard.
Then, Salman can appeal to the Supreme Court by way of SLP. Yeah, it could take
years. It would take years. It will take years.
How it looks like now, I would be very surprised if Salman Khan goes to Jail.
*I don't blame Salman Khan. The man is only saving his life. Any rich, famous and
influential man in his place would do exactly the same. Dig in his diamond studded
heels and push the system as far as it would go. Salman Khan is not the first person
to do so, and he won't be the last.
969 views 22 upvotes Updated 16 May Asked to answer by Anand Prakash
Upvote22Downvote
Comments2
More Answers Below.

Related Questions
Who else do you think is expecting bail now from the Indian judicial system?
Before Salman & now Jaya Lalita bailed. Does that show the inaccuracy of the
Indian Judicial system?
Is Salman Khan's hit and run case another example of the failure of the Indian
judicial system?
What's wrong with the Indian Judicial system? How can people like Salman
Khan or Ramalinga Raju come out with bail? How can someone like Jayal...
Salman Khan (Indian film actor): What is your take on Salman Khan's verdict
of 5-year prison for a 2002 hit and run case? How was this case different from
Alistair Pereira's 2...

Suyash Manjul, of Law

Suyash has 30+ answers in Supreme Court of India.
I call this the "Paradox of Law". If I say that his lawyers are "exploiting" the legal
system to keep him out jail that would mean that I somehow know for sure that he
is Guilty. If, on appeal he is released and the trial court judgment is nullified that
would mean that he is not guilty and therefore my belief was wrong. It can therefore
never be established unless the Supreme Court pronounces the verdict of his guilt
(Remember: The Supreme Court is not final because it is right, it is right because it
is final). So whatever I say here is in no way related to Salman Khan or his guilt or
the strategy that his lawyers apply. It is all about the practical operations of the law.
Indian Law like laws in other countries work on two forms of law:
1. Substantive Law
2. Procedural Law
Substantive law is that part of law which defines Rights, Duties, Crimes and their
Punishments etc. It is the "What" of the Law. The Procedural lawhowever is that
part of the Law which consists of the proper way of doing things, such as hearing a
case in a court of law, or the process of conducting investigations and determining
evidences etc. It is the "How" of the Law.
For example "What" is theft and "What" punishment to be given for it, is provided in
the Indian Penal Code. But once someone is is accused of stealing, how the
investigation must be conducted and how the courts should try the witness is all
part of procedural law mostly provided in Criminal Procedure code as well as in
certain other laws.
When it comes to delay in trials this procedural law is to be held responsible. The
discretion of the courts, the right to seek adjournments, the concern to not hamper
the rights of accused.
Apart from procedural law, the lethargic attitude of the authorities and the over
burdened courts, the lack of technological access are other major reasons. Once all
these reasons add up, all the lawyers has to do is play these cards one by one at
the right time.
The prosecutions seeks adjournments.
The defense seeks adjournments.
The authorities delay the matter.
The Courts are not able to give much time (work burden)

The right to appeal to Higher Courts.

All these add up to delay, long delays.
Thanks for the A2A Anand Prakash
If you liked this answer, please do like our page Legally India and Visit my
blog Legal Digital or read my book for startups Legal Foundation for Startups and
help us create a better startup environment by filling this formEntrepreneurs' Form.
376 views 6 upvotes Written 8 May Asked to answer by Anand Prakash
Upvote6Downvote
Comments2

Derek Demitrius
In a democratic country the process of law is quite different even the accused are
given the benefit of doubt and there is a whole line of defense that is given
precedence. This is how the system works. The reason for India's Judiciary system
lagging behind is not the number of cases, it is the ruling government that gives
importance to certain issues. Who says a judiciary system is not tainted, bring me
one case where the prosecution or the Police department is pulled up for not doing
their duty, It will take a zillion Modis to clear this mess and it will still not get
cleared until and unless the pay structure and the policing system is changed.
We still follow the policing system that the British introduced when they were
ruling, The hierarchy is still the same, the only difference is the the British have
been replaced by the Politicians.
Good Policemen get shuffled around like a pack of cards till they give up and let be.
Not a single politician has come forward to change the way police work, not even
Modi, we can see changes in different fields airline industry, automobile industry, I
can keep naming it... But when it comes to administration and law and order there
has been no change.
A policeman in India is forced to be corrupt, he is not paid well given shoddy
housing with no facilities for education for his kids. What do you expect him to do,
resort to Gandhi's scriptures.
Everybody knows it but still does nothing about it. Actors and Actresses have great
charity work being done for villages, have they looked out for the constable that
patrols the ward in the middle of the night all by himself, have they given praise to
the Inspectors that face the criminal world every day?
The Indian Police are the most competent Policemen in the World if given the
opportunity this country can see much better days if this force is given the power to
eliminate corruption.
Today a girl can walk the streets of Mumbai at 1.00 am this was not the case 3
decades ago, but nobody has ever given credit to those men in uniform who got rid

of Mumbai rivalry gangs!!

This is the way I see it and my personal opinion
48 views Written 8 May Asked to answer by Anand Prakash
UpvoteDownvote
Comment1

Kailash Kanugo, Inspired by The God, Parents, Teachers, Better Half, and the
Nation. A pigmy ...
Now when the Criminal appeal of Salman-Khan is admitted in the High Court, the
delaying tactics would start with these steps.
Step 1 :- Delay the transmission of trial (sessions) court record to the High Court
since unless the record is received by the appellate court, the case can not move
further.
Step 2 :- After receipt of concerned case record in the High court, then manage the
concerned clerk of record section to see that it does not move to next
section/department for a considerable time period or as long as it could be.
Step 3 :- Manage the Public prosecutor to delay the matter. ( The accused in this
case is very rich and is able to shell out anything which any Public Prosecutor can
dream of ).
Step 4 :- Engage such advocate who is relative of any sitting High Court or Supreme
Court Judge. There are many relatives of sitting and retired High Court Judges who
are practicing lawyers in Mumbai High Court.
And if only Step no.4 is followed, I am sure that Salman-Khan will get the desired
order of acquittal from the High Court itself. So forget about 20-30 years, if
Salman-Khan remains alive beyond that then also, he will be able to mock at the
law made for a common man.( and common man only).
Note :- I would like to receive comments ( if any) from practicing lawyers only. Other
having only theoretical knowledge, pl excuse me.
Essay on the Indian Judicial System
by Prasad Nanda
Advertisements:
The British set up the Indian judicial system as a copy of the British judicial system.
The judiciary is relatively independent and consists of the Supreme Court which is
made up of the chief justice and 25 other justices, all appointed by the President on
the advice of the Prime Minister.
The Supreme Court is the apex court in the country. It is situated in the capital city
of Delhi, presided over by the Chief Justice of India and does not have benches in
any other part of the country.

This apex court, besides being the final court of permissible appeal, also deals with
interstate matters and matters that involve more than one state, matters between
the Union Government and any or more states.
The President of India can seek consultation and guidance including the opinion of
the apex court and its judges. This court can penalize anybody for its own contempt.
Appeals to the Supreme Court are allowed from the High Court only. If the matter is
deemed to be important enough on the point of law or on the subject of the
constitution of the nation and is certified as such by the High court, then and then
alone is the Appeal forwarded to the Supreme Court.
Special Leave Petitions are allowed in the absence of appeal from the High Court
with the leave of the apex court. The High Court is the head of the states judicial
administration. Each state is further divided into judicial districts presided over by a
district and sessions judge, who is the highest judicial authority in the district.
Below him, there are courts of civil jurisdiction, known in different states as subjudges or civil judges. The Criminal Judiciary comprises of chief judicial magistrate
and judicial magistrates of first and second class.
The Indian judiciary has become a crumbling institution that has no internal
mechanisms. It has displayed a distinct lack of will or strength to adapt to the
changing times.
Due to the time it takes to get justice in India, people have an inclination to evade
filing cases. International investors and corporations take this as a stumbling block
of doing business in India. The long drawn out Jessica Lai murder case and the
Mumbai blasts of 1993 highlight the weaknesses of our judiciary.
The Harshad Mehta scam one of the first major scandals is a good example of how
long the Indian judiciary takes to serve justice. After seven years of trial, Harshad
Mehta was punished. Around the same time in Singapore there was a scandal
involving Nick Leeson of the Barings Company. Under the Singapore system of
justice within two years, Leeson was punished. He actually underwent the
punishment before the first decision could be arrived at under the Indian judicial
system in the Harshad Mehta case.
The common man perceives the court not as a means of procuring justice but an
alternative to be used for the harassment of the opposite party. The delays in the
judicial systems are counterproductive. Justice delayed in actuality is justice denied.
Many disputes are sought to be settled through mediators- sometimes goons and
sometimes local politicians.
The arcane procedures, irrelevant laws and long drawn out appeals only serve to
slow down the justice granted by the judicial system in India. Over two million cases
are pending in 18 High Courts alone and more than 200,000 cases are pending in
the Supreme Court for admission, interim relief or final hearing. And it takes
anywhere between 5 to 15 years for a case to be decided in an Indian Court. The
future of justice in India looks bleak unless some very radical changes are
incorporated in the judiciary system.
Short essay on Indian Judiciary system
DNYANESH KUMAR
Advertisements:
Within the framework of parliamentary democracy and federalism, judiciary plays
an important role in the governance of the country. The judiciary is an indispensable

part of governance and an efficient and independent judiciary is the greatest

guarantee of well being of society.
Indeed, the Indian judiciary was seen to be an arm of the social revolution,
upholding the equality and dignity of men that the people of India suffered long
during the colonial days, but it has not been gained as yet.
Historically speaking, the Indian judicial system has had a glorious past.. The
framers of the Indian Constitution conceived of a judicial system, which was free
from the control of the executive as well as the legislature. India opted for a single
judicial system and by creating a single judiciary with the Supreme Court at the top,
the framers of the Constitution obviously intended to introduce certain judicial
reforms.
In the governance of a democracy, judiciary plays a very important role, which is
second to none. The Constitution accords a place of pride to the judiciary by
conferring the power of judicial review of legislative and administrative actions and
entrusting it with the task of enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution.
In fact, the judiciary assumes a significant and special importance by virtue of its
very task of sitting on judgment on the actions of the other two organs and power of
interpreting the constitutional provisions.
Judiciary - the organisation for giving justice to the society, occupies a position of
pre-eminence among the three organs of the State. Justice is considered, as a
logical requirement of any society for it is a part of human nature to expect justice
and be intolerant to injustice. Justice enjoins upon everybody to preserve the basic
order of society and prohibits everyone to disturb it.
The promotion of good governance through judiciary depends on its independence
to a great extent. An independent, unbiased and able judiciary is the first
requirement of justice. Independence of the judiciary means independence from the
government in power since judges have to provide justice not only between citizens
but also between a citizen and the State.
The Indian Constitution makes provision for an independent and impartial judiciary.
Former Chief Justice Chandra HUD opines that the independence of judiciary is the
"cardinal feature" and observed that the "judiciary which is to act as a bastion of the
rights and freedom of the people is given certain constitutional guarantees to
safeguard the independence of judiciary".
Firstly, in order to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, certain
provisions are provided in the Constitution. One such provision is the appointment
of judges.
The Constitutional provisions regarding the appointment of a judge is that only
those persons can be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, who are citizens
of India and (a) has been judge of a High Court or of two or more courts in
succession at least for five years; or (b) has been an advocate of a High Court or of
two or more such courts in succession at least for ten years; or (c) is a distinguished
jurist, in the opinion of the President.
These provisions show that no ordinary person can become a judge. In other words,
highly qualified persons can become a judge of the Supreme Court. In the lower,
appointments are made on the basis of written examinations those who clear the
examinations an appointed. Here too, we see that the appointments are strictly
made on the basis of merit.
Secondly, they are provided security of tenure. Once appointed, they can stay in
office till they attain the age of 65 and 62 (Supreme Court and High Court

respectively). They can be removed from their post only on the ground of proved
misbehavior or incapacity through a process of impeachment.
This impeachment process is so tough that till date no judge has been removed
from the post. Once, the proceedings were initiated against Justice Ramaswamy for
financial irregularities but the resolution could not be passed for want of required
support in the House.
Thirdly, in case of Supreme Court judges, they have been prohibited from practicing
law before any court of authority within the territory of India after retirement.
Fourthly, they are paid handsome salary and are entitled to a free house and certain
other allowances and privileges neither the salary allowances and privileges, nor
their rights in respect of leave of absence or pension can varied to their
disadvantage after their appointment. During a grave financial emergency, the
salaries of the judges may be reduced.
Fifthly, all the actions and decisions of the judges in their official capacity are
immune from criticism. Besides, the conduct of a judge may not be discussed in the
parliament except when a resolution for his removal is before it.
Finally, the Supreme Court has been authorized to have its own establishment and
to have complete control over it. It is further authorized to make appointments of
officers and servants of the court and determine their service conditions.
All these provisions were made in order to ensure the independence and impartiality
of the judges. As Ambedkar said in the Assembly, it was the intention of the framers
to create a judiciary and to give it ample independence so that it could act without
fear or favour of the executive or anybody else
Free sample essay on the Problems of the Judiciary system of India
by Aliva Manjari
Advertisements:
We have inherited the present system of our courts and their procedure from the
British which has been tried for more than 150 years. It has, however, to be
admitted that old is not always gold. The system suited well when it was introduced.
It is still to a great extent the best judicial system but, like any other system, it has
become old, ineffective and is unable to cope with the changing pattern of the
society.
New blood in the procedure needs to be injected and sooner the better. The late Mr.
M.C Stalvad, the first Attorney General of India, in his address to the Bar Association
of India said:
No doubt the British system of administration was very good and led to excellent
results, but it had its defects which have been accentryated in two ways. We are
now a democratic country and we are a much more populous country.
In these days, therefore, what is required is a radical change in the method of
administration of justice. We want courts to which people can go with ease and with
as little cost as possible. It is not merely the quickness of justice but it is the easy
approach and quick disposal both which are needed and that only can be achieved
if the system is completely overhauled:
This was said about 40 years ago. Have we made any important? Chief Justice
Ranganath Mishra had given an optimistic note. He in his law Day speech in 1990
observed.
In these forty years law has considerably progressed in many aspects. The bar of
locus stand was liberalized as early as in 1981. Ever since then, these have been a
sizeable mould to the nature of litigation particularly in superior courts. In these 8-9
years, Public and has served the cause of the community to a great extent.

It is in this group of cases that the court has exhibited its competition of being a
social auditor. The impact of the judicial process in social living has been clear and
discernible; the common man has perhaps been able to see the benefit the judicial
system is capable of bringing about.
Admires and credits often indicate that for reasons which are more than one judicial
system has shown appearances of cracks and fatigue. It has therefore become
necessary to deal with the situation both promptly as also dexterously.
It would not be enough to overcome the almost inevitable inefficiency of justice
according top law. But far-reaching changes are certainly impossible while the
regime of individualism upon which are prevailing ideal is based is considered
desirable.
As long as individual interest is preferred to general interest, both civil and criminal
justice must remain inefficient and insufficient to a large extent. Those who speak of
judicial inefficiency are usually unaware of the highly artificial meaning of the
conception.
The law is efficient in civil suits when it enters judgement and issues execution as
expeditiously as possible. Thereafter its efficiency ceases to be the primarily
consideration. As a result of the humanitarism which is the necessary corollary of
the present individualism a whole series of obstacles arise in the enforcement of
execution.
The property of the debtor is often put beyond the reach of the creditor either by
the procedural delays which make it possible for the debtor to transfer it or by
formal exemptions from executions. The person of the debtor is of course beyond
seizure. In this respect the law of previous centuries, more judicial inefficiency is
usually unaware of the highly artificial meaning of the conception.
The law is efficient in civil suits when it enters judgement and issues execution as
expeditiously as possible. Thereafter its efficiency ceases to be the primary
consideration. As a result of the humanitarianism which is the necessary corollary of
the present individualism a whole series of obstacles arise in the enforcement of
execution.
The property of the debtor is often put beyond the reach of the creditor either by
the procedural delays which make it possible for the debtor to transfer it or by
formal exemptions from execution. The person of the debtor is of course beyond
seizure.
In this respect the law of previous centuries, more frequently recognized rights of
provisional arrest and imprisonment for debt, was certainly more efficient. But a
return to the older law will hardly recommend itself now. In any event there would
still remain the economic poverty of the debtor to defeat the efficiency of the law,
and it is safe to venture that the latter would be blamed exclusively for every
miscarriage of justice.
In the criminal law the situation is somewhat reversed. Once judgement against an
offender is given, it is much more certain to be executed. But the concern for the
individual is manifest in the procedure to judgement. The provisions are not only
considered procedural safeguards but are great constitutional rights.
They are indeed constitutional rights which have-been own only after many
centuries of bloodshed and in no democracy would their abandonment be seriously
considered. The almost insoluble dilemma is that they benefit not only the ordinary
citizen who occasionally finds himself in the coils of the law but the professional
criminal who by long experience has learned to take advantage of all its defences.

Since it is difficult to secure radical alternation of fundamental social institutions,

the reform of judicial administration usually concerns itself with adjustments of the
judicial machinery. Reforms of procedure are far more frequent than changes of
substantive law. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the results frequently leave
so much to be desired.
It is true that the distinction between substantive law and procedure to a great
extent is artificial. All reforms of procedure affect substantive rights but certainly
they cannot improve the situation where the substantive right is of a dubious
character. In general the creation of new courts or the appointment of additional
judges to existing courts is a very frequent expedient in reforms.
Its popularity with politicians arises from the fact that it increases their patronage
by providing new offices to fill. Changes in steps in procedure often have the curious
result of increasing the congestion of the courts at least for some time. A great deal
of litigation is often necessary to settle their effect.
The fundamental puzzle of procedural reform is the indispensably of any one
particular device. Since legal technique permits of a considerable degree of
variance for the accomplishment of similar ends, it can be said that almost any form
of procedure reasonably adapted to secure the fundamental purposes of the law will
work if there is the will to make it work.
On the other hand, it must be remembered that men discharge their civil obligations
and abstain from crime not only from fear of legal sanctions but also from moral and
practical considerations. The modem tendency certainly has no forms of social
control.
Finally, it must be realized that even the defects of the administration of justice, at
least in civil matters, any have some social value in discouraging litigation, in
impelling men to exhaust the possibilities of conciliation. In an acquisitive society, it
is perhaps desirable that the paths of litigation be strewn with a few thorns.
Arrears in Courts:
Popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice has certainly not been less
in the twentieth than in previous centuries. In a period of particularly accelerated
tempo, it would seem easy to explain the prevailing dissatisfaction in terms of
institutional transitions. If, however, the phenomenon is constant, it can hardly be
explained entirely as the result of changing conditions.
An explanation solely in terms of sociological differentials can be adequate only if
more fundamental factors are absent. It is for instance tempting to assign the
prevalence of perjury, which so often in modern courts undermined the
administration of justice, entirely because of the decline in influence of religious
ideas. But perjury has always been a not infrequent crime.
It should certainly be no less powerful a restraint to fear for the punishments of this
world than to fear the terminates of the next. Authority has maintained itself
somehow despite the decay of religious institutions.
To take another stock illustration, the vast improvement in means of communication
has undoubtedly given the criminal facile means to attempt escape but the
advantage is balanced by the ease with which public authorities may pursue him.
There is again the pernicious influence of the modern city.
To it is attributed the congestion of the courts which is supposed to be the very
basis of the modern maladministration of justice. But mere size hardly account for
the evils of metropolitan justice. As a matter of fact the city has been the originator
of most of the improvements of procedure in the history of legal systems. If there

are more litigants in the city, it has the necessary wealth to secure additional judges
and good lawyers.
There is a general consensus that our judicial system today from the highest to the
lowest is suffering from many ailments. Everyone speaking about judicial system
starts with an apology and admission of the falling standards. Justice V D
Tulzapurkar of the Supreme Court has observed:
In fact, the superior judiciary of the country has of late been under constant
onslaughts, external as well as internal which are bound to cripple the health,
welfare and progress of our body politic, as an ailing heart cannot ensure vigorous
blood supply for the sound health of its people. Former Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati
in his Law Day speech in 1985 said:
I am pained to observe that the judicial system in the country is almost on the verge
of collapse. Our judicial system is crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite
saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We often utter this platitudinous phrase
to express our indignation at the delay in disposal of cases but this indignation is
only at an intellectual and years to get justice.
They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait patiently for years and
years to gets justice. They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait
patiently for years and years gets justice. They have to pass through the labyrinth
of one court to another until their patience gets exhausted and they give up hope in
utter despair.
The only persons who benefit by the delay in our Courts are the dishonest who can
with impunity avoid carrying out their legal obligations for years and each affluent
person who obtains orders and stays or injunctions against Government and the
public authorities and then continues to enjoy the benefit of such stay or injunction
for years, often at the cost of public interest.
About Supreme Court, the Chief Justice observed: The Supreme Court is today on
the brink of collapse with the enormous inflow of cases and heavy arrears. I, for me,
do not think that a large increase in the number of judges is desirable. If the number
of Judges is unduly increased, the Supreme Court will become like a glorified High
Court with fragmented bench structures.
The Supreme Court will lose its identity as a Summit Court and there will be losing
its identity as a Summit Court and there will be no cohesiveness and uniformity.
Equally I am not in favour of curtailing in any manner whatsoever the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Laws Delays:
The laws delay is classic and universal; it has served to describe the almost
immemorial condition of civil suits. The dockets, or the calendars of civil causes, are
always overcrowded and it may take years to get a trial on merits. The expenses of
commencing a civil action and the legal costs involved are too heavy, and it
becomes hardly worthwhile to base an action on a small claim.
The procedure is too elaborate and technicalities impede the litigant at every stage.
Even after an initial judgement, a number of appeals may be a further cause of
delay. Where, the final judgement is secured, execution is more than likely to be
returned unsatisfied.
Under such circumstances the honest litigant is impeded in the assertion of his legal
rights, while paradoxically enough the dishonest litigant is encouraged to assert
unfounded or exaggerated claims. The very expenses of engaging upon a
protracted litigation should cause parties to settle for smaller sums or go without
redress and justice.

Delay and technicality are operative not in civil actions alone. The condition is not
better in the administration of criminal justice. In the pre- democratic era the
arbitrary character of criminal justice led to accusations of excessive harshness,
while and present the outcry is against an excessive tenderness towards
malefactors. Many criminals are never even chance to escape by taking advantage
of the loopholes of the law.
The inherent drama of a criminal trial in the very nature of things always favours
the defence. Except in matrimonial actions and libel cases a civil trial is usually free
of such influence. On the other hand, corruption, favouritism and perjury are
especially operative in criminal trials. Every period has its own cause celebrate.
It is a hearsay that wealthy and powerful malefactors escape while the poor and
friendless go to jail. Innocent men are sometimes framed by the police; and it is
small comfort that the same technique is employed to get professional criminals
behind the bars upon fabricated charges. Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court
had observed:
Another thing which is shaking the confidence of the people in the judicial system is
the high incidence of acquittals and the increasing failure of the system to bring
major culprits to book. Judges, of courses, have to give their verdict on the material
on record and no one can and should expect the courts to hold a person guilty
unless there is credible evidence to substantiate the charge against him.
One major reason for the high percentage of acquittals is the decline in the high
percentage of acquittals is the decline in the quality of police investigation and its
consequent inability to procure and produce credible evidence as may establish the
guilt of the accused.
Such decline in its turn has been due to interference by the politicians in the
investigation of cases. It is well-known that the greater a person is a goonda or an
anti-social being the greater in his value and utility at the time of elections.
When politicians seek and secure the assistance of anti-social beings at the time of
the elections, the latter extend their assistance in the expectation that when those
antisocial elements are in trouble at the hands of the law enforcement agencies, the
politicians to the anti-social beings when in difficulty is the quid pro quo for the help
given by the anti-social beings at the time of elections.
All this naturally makes the task of the police Investigation of crimes extremely
difficult. This apart, we find that a good bit of the time of the police force is taken in
the security and other arrangements for the VIPs. Demonstrations, bandhs, strikes,
hartals and agitations have increasingly become a part of cur public life and call for
considerable attention of the police force, investigation of crimes occupies
comparatively lower priority in the functioning of the police.
The result as such is deterioration in the quality of investigation and the increasing
inability of the police force to adduce credible evidence at the trial. Be that as it
may, whatever may be the reason for the high incidence of acquittals the inevitable
effect of that would necessarily be the loss of confidence of the people in the courts
to bring the major culprits to book?
We have to bear in mind that if the people lose their faith in the judicial system and
carry the impression that the judiciary is not able to punish the culprits, the victims
and the kinsmen of the victims would resort to extra-legal methods to settle scores
with the culprits whose identity is normally known to them. It is plain that such a
state of affairs would lead to chaotic and anarchical conditions.
Technicalities of Law and its Procedure:

A universal rather than a particularistic mode of approach explains a great many of

the defects of judicial administration. Litigiousness is a strong characteristic of
human nature. All over the world a forensic display attracts the admiration of the
multitudes.
Curiously, legal technicalities are despised; at the same time, their ingenuity is
applauded. Disappointed litigants are riot always silent. In their defeat they appeal
from law to Justice Lawyers as a class has too much to gain from maintaining the
intricacies of their art and to simplify it to great extent would make their service
unnecessary.
For many reasons legal institutions lag behind changes of public opinion much mere
than other institutions. The procedure in the Civil and Criminal Courts has become
too technical, cumbersome, expensive and slow. There are too many appeals. It was
the best when introduced in the social and political ethos of that time, but it now
has become a rain soaked blanket on the back of a common litigant. The judges,
lawyers and the defendants have litigant. The judges, lawyers and the defendants
have now vested interest in this procedure.
Chief Justice Shri P.N Bhagwati in his Law Day speech delivered in 1986 says:
There are still unfortunately in our country a few lawyers and jurists who ostrich-like
want to bury their heads in sand and refuse to recognize the new change which is
taking place in the judicial process as a result of public interest litigation.
Trained in the old British tradition of adversary justice and born and brought up in
an era where the doctrine of lassies afire prevailed and with their minds fossilized
and overtaken by senility, they find it difficult to reconcile themselves to the new
wind of change which is roaring down in ancient corridors.
They are intellectually still living in the first half of the 20th century or perhaps even
the 19th century and cannot grow out of that mould. They are so much accustomed
to treading the beaten path that they cannot tolerate any departure or change, To
th6m the justicing process is merely an intellectual exercise where judges and
lawyers can display their learning and scholarship, the have-nots and the
handicapped, the lowly and the lost have no place in their scheme of things.
They want the judiciary to continue dispensing justice processed in the ramshackle
and anachronistic Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence because for them those who dispense
jurisprudence are demi-gods. But these so called champions of justice do not realize
that there are large masses of people in the country who are entitled to justice and
if they do not get it soon.
They will one day storm the highway and destroy those who claim it to be their
exclusive right to walk along it. Fortunately, as a result of public interest litigation,
the weaker sections of the people, the disadvantaged segments of the community
are now for the first time looking up to the courts as their protector against
injustice.
So far the courts had been inaccessible to them. But now their problems can be
brought before the courts and justice ensured to them through the strategy of
public Interest Litigation.
A near revolution is taking place in the judicial process, notwithstanding the
unreasoned criticism of a few who live in ivory towers and palatial buildings,
unmindful of the misery, suffering and exploitation of the underprivileged segments
of society who constitute over 50 percent of the population of this country.
Conditions of Subordinate Judiciary:
The conditions of Subordinate Judiciary, which forms the backbone of the judicial
structure, are pitiable; Chief justice Shri P. N. Bhagwati had this to say about it:

There are large numbers of cases pending in the subordinate courts of District
Judges, Civil Judges and Munsiffs. It is not possible to cope with this large inflow of
cases in the subordinate courts unless and until we bring about structural changes,
but even within the existing system, we can do very much if we improve the salary
and conditions of service of our subordinate judges and provide them better
working condition.
We are unable to attract good talent in the subordinate judiciary because of the
rather poor remuneration and unsatisfactory conditions of service of subordinate
judges. We do not have enough number of judges in the subordinate judiciary in
many of the states nor do we have enough number of courts.
The subordinate judges in quite a few states have no housing facilities and they
have to depend on lawyers and, sometimes, even on litigants to obtain housing
accommodation and that too at exorbitant rent which they can hardly afford. There
are not even proper court buildings at many places.
Moreover we do not give to our subordinate judges pre appointment training or
continuing in service training. We proceed on the assumption that as soon as they
are appointed as subordinate Judges, some divine wisdom descents upon they and
they acquire skill and capacity to deliver justice. The reason for all this is that in
many of the states, administration of justice has a low priority.
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicable system at the
lower levels, there are redundancies to make such finances available. We do not
seem to realize that it is subordinate courts which form the basis of the pyramid of
justice and unless the base is strengthened, the pyramid is bound to crumble.
It is often forgotten that the contact of the common man with the justice system
occurs only at the level of the subordinate courts; he has rarely occasion to go to
the High Court and therefore, if we want to inspire confidence in the common may
that he can get justice, it is imperative to strengthen the subordinate judiciaries.
There is also lack of appreciation on the part of many, that if there is a strong
subordinate judiciary, the number of appeals to the High Courts will go down and
the burden of the High Courts will be considerable reduced.
Impartiality of Judges and their integrity:
There has always been insistence upon the superior integrity of judicial
administration. There is also need for the sublimity of justice. The administration of
justice is considered not only as a function of the state but as something of a
mystery. This is apparent from many familiar practice and sentiments.
At least High Courts of justice are everywhere required to be architecturally
magnificent. A trial, particularly a criminal trial, is as much a rite as a religious
ceremony. The proceedings are arranged to impress both the participants and the
spectators with solemnity of the occasion, with the majesty of the administration of
justice. Not only the vulgar but the enlightened still respond to the ritual with some
feeling to awe.
The reasons for these peculiar attitudes towards judicial administration hark back to
an early period in the history of the state, which established the primary importance
of rendering justice between man and man. There is a persisting memory of the
anarchy of the period of self-help. The early sacral affiliations of the administration
of justice are also not forgotten.
When the king as sorted his power over warring and intractable, justice was
established as the very foundations of kingdoms. The common man now had some
measure of relief against the aggressions of the mighty. In his gratitude he invested
justice with special attributes of sanctity.

For many centuries the state remained almost solely the policing state, and the
administration of justice was the only public function it undertook in the interest of
the common man. Legal justice was synonymous with social justice, and it was
natural enough that it should be appreciated very highly.
Today the state undertakes many administrative services, and the contact of the
average citizen with the state is far more frequent through its administrative than
its judicial agencies. The average man today may not pass through life without
coming into contact with the judicial agencies.
The average man today may not pass through life without coming into contact with
the judicial machinery of the state. But it is still considered far less calamitous to
have to pay a bribe for an occupational license than to be denied justice in the
courts or to get it by paying for it.
Nothing more can undermine the certainty of justice than lack of impartiality. Thus
the integrity of the administration of justice has been elevated as an idea!. More
over the insistence has been upon a superior degree of integrity as compared with
other breaches of administration. Judicial administration has been surrounded with
special safeguards.
The modern state has striven to achieve a legal justice that should be far superior to
its economic justice. In large measure it has succeeded. A judicial scandal is
considered especially deplorable. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in
the courts is a cause for great anxiety and alarm.
A legislator or an administrator may be found guilty of corruption without
apparently endangering the foundations of the state but a judge must keep himself
absolutely above suspicion. To speak of the independence, impartiality and
integrity of the judges and administration of justice has become almost a fetus.
The courts/judges have now to realize that its sacrosanct nature, its high pedestal,
its power of contempt will not save it if they are not fair, impartial and honest. The
modern tendency is that the right to criticize judges be one of the safeguards to
ensure very high standards of performance. Our Supreme Court observed in one of
the cases:
Wise judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their
office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their
judgements, the force, fairness and objectivity of their approach and by the
restraint, dignity and decorum with which they observe their judicial conduct.
India Today summed up the situation thus:
Judges today are a community under siege. They are being divested of the single
virtue that has been their armour and sword credibility. It is not the tragedy of just a
few hundred individuals that their ability and intentions are being brought into
question.
When these individual happen to be the guardians of our liberty and property, the
interpreters and watchdogs of our Constitution, it becomes a national catastrophe.
It affects and stultifies each one of us.
Why Indian Judiciary system is so slow and lethargic?
Social issues
by Editor
56FLARES Twitter 9Google+ 1
Facebook 46LinkedIn 0inShareEmail--Email to a friend
Indian judiciary system, which encompasses laws and rules governing the social
and fundamental scenario of the country, is largely influenced by the English
common legislature owing to the prolonged influence of British colonial culture.

Although the judiciary system is based on the core values, morale and cultural
traditions of Indian society; it has a number of loopholes which often triggers
various crime and illegal endeavors.
The Indian judicial system is supposed to protect the common men from
lawbreakers and offenders. But in reality it serves the

Why Indian Judiciary system is so slow and lethargic Chakreview.com

political authorities and provides protection to gruesome criminals who are subtly
backed by the politicians. The role of Indian judiciary in securing law and order
across the country should be impartial and free from all sorts of external or
unauthorized influences.
Most negative aspect of Indian judiciary system is its lethargic and slogging
approach. There are countless instances wherein cases run for decades and the
defendants pass away without being awarded with the proper judgment. Indeed this
is shameful for any civilized country that boasts about its advancing prosperity.
According to the records till January 2005, more than 30,000 cases pending at the
Supreme Court, 33.79 lakh in high courts and more than 2.35 crore in lower courts.
With respect to the population on India, the ration of judges to people is 10.5: 10,
00000 which is no doubt the poorest in the world.
Often people wait 5 to 20 years to get their cases settled through normal legal
course. Another eminent instance of Indian judicial failure is the Bhopal Gas Disaster
Judgment. After more than 20 years past the fatal incident, finally Indian judiciary
was able to find a decision. But the cornerstone of this case which is the principle of
absolute liability has been diluted in the decision. It shows nothing but the
indifferent approach of the judiciary towards the plight of the victims and any other
accidents that may take place in the future.
The Jessica Lal murder case is considered another of major delay of the Judiciary
system. The young model was shot dead at a Delhi bar by Manu Sharma whose
father was a politically influential person. Though the police chalked the case
against him, he went underground for several days and later on when the preceding
started, most of the eye witnesses denied to identify him as the murdered. This is a
classic instance of Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied. In some other cases popular
celebrities and political leaders have twisted laws and facts to escape penalty, eg
case of Sanjay Dutts involvement in Bombay blast or Salman khans road rage

case. These people are free mainly due to lengthy timings of case hearings and
loose laws.
Apart from the major cases, there are countless cases of rape, murder and other
crimes which remain unresolved for years and the victims suffer pain of dissuasion.
The Indian legal system requires a major boost and a complete reformation in order
to meet the expectations of the citizens on India. First of all, inflecting the legal
judgments, which is considered a crime according to laws, must be punished with
immediate effect. In case the existing count of courts is less compared to the
population, new court setups should be opened.
There should be an even arrangement for the pending cases and new cases. The
court remains closed for days just like school holidays which are nothing but an
unnecessary luxury. With so much work pending, Government should trim down the
number of holidays and day offs. Legal system should not be a purchasable
commodity any more. Politicians should be strictly restricted from directly or
indirectly interfering in judgments. Moreover the corrupt political leaders must be
treated with utmost stringency.
Finally it is the responsibility of every Indian to look after its legal system. If all of us
do out bit to stay within the legal limits, indeed it will make the task easier for
Indian judiciary.