Judiciary of India
The Judiciary of India is the system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. The Constitution of India provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India. India uses a mixed legal system based majorly on the common law with civil laws applicable in certain territories in combination with certain religion specific personal laws.
The judiciary is made in three levels with subsidiary parts. The Supreme Court is the highest court and serves as the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. High Courts are the top judicial courts in individual states, led by the state Chief Justice. The High Courts manage a system of subordinate courts headed by the various District and Session Courts in their respective jurisdictions. The executive and revenue courts are managed by the respective state governments through the district magistrates or other executive magistrates. Although the executive courts are not part of the judiciary, various provisions and judgements empower the High Courts and Session Judges to inspect or direct their operation.
The Chief Justice of India, other judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a collegium system consisting of judges of the Supreme Court. Judges of subordinate judiciaries are appointed by the governors on the recommendation of the respective High Courts.
At the Union level, the Ministry of Law and Justice is responsible for formulating laws and addressing issues relating to the judiciary with the Parliament. It has jurisdiction to deal with the issues of any court and also deals with the appointment of the various judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. At the state level, the respective law departments of the states deal with issues regarding the High Court and the subordinate courts.
Constitution
The Constitution of India empowers the judiciary to act as the Guardian of the Law. A number of provisions deal with the judiciary's role, power, function, and officer appointments. The major provisions are:- Part V - Chapter IV - Union Judiciary i.e., Supreme Court - appointment and removal, role and function
- Part VI - Chapter V - High Court - appointment and removal, role and function
- Part VI - Chapter VI- Subordinate Courts - appointment and removal, role and function
- Article 50 - Independence of Judiciary - separates judiciary from executive branch
- Other provisions appear under parts and articles that deal with the court's responsibilities.
The judiciary is expected to remain unaffected by pressures exerted by other branches of government, citizens or interest groups. The independence of the judiciary is a basic and inalienable feature of the Constitution, One such protection is that no minister can suggest a name to the President, who ultimately appoints judges from a list recommended by the collegium system. Judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court cannot be removed from office once appointed, unless a two-thirds majority of members of any Houses of the Parliament back the move on grounds of misconduct or incapacity. A person who has been a judge of a court is barred from practicing in the jurisdiction of that court.
Judge strength refers to the maximum number of judges that the court is allowed to have.
Appointment
Under Parts V and VI of the Constitution, the President of India appoints Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court with the consent of the Chief Justice. In practice, the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts in accordance with the principles set forth in the Three Judges Cases. The President selects from a list recommended by the collegium system – a closed group consisting of the Chief Justice and the most senior judges of the Supreme Court. Prior to the Three Judges Cases, the President appointed judges upon their recommendation by the Union Cabinet. In 1993, as a result of the Second Judges Case, the executive was given the power to reject a name recommended by the judiciary. The executive has since faced criticism for its decisions relating to this power.Decisions by the collegium have been the subject of legal scrutiny. In Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors., the court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and that any person therefore had a right to question the court's determination regarding a candidate's qualifications. However, the court also wrote that who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as a judge's appointment is the subject of a legitimate consultation by the collegium, the content or material it uses to form its opinion cannot be scrutinized by a court.
In contrast to the historical norms concerning Supreme Court and High Court appointments, appointments for Subordinate Court Judges are handled as prescribed under the Constitution and other laws and codes. Appointments are generally made by the Public Service Commission of a particular state. However, in some states, the respective High Court can appoint judges of subordinate courts. Regardless of the source of the appointment, the process for the appointment of judges is the same, and is based on the results of a competitive examination. Junior Division civil judges may advance to judicial positions in the Provincial Civil Service, while entry level district judges with at least 7 years of experience can complete the Higher Judicial Service exam in order to advance.
History
The history of jury trials in India dates to the period of European colonisation. In 1665, a petit jury in Madras composed of twelve English and Portuguese jurors acquitted Ascentia Dawes, who was on trial for the murder of her enslaved servant. During the period of Company rule in India, jury trials within dual-court system territories were implemented in Indian territories under East India Company control. In Presidency towns, Crown Courts employed juries to judge European and Indian defendants in criminal cases. Outside of Presidency towns, Company Courts staffed by EIC officials judged both criminal and civil cases without the use of a jury.In 1860, after the British Crown assumed control over the EIC's possessions in India, the Indian Penal Code was adopted. A year later, the Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted. These provisions stipulated that criminal juries were only mandatory in the High Courts of Presidency towns; in all other parts of British India, they were optional and rare. In cases where the defendants were either European or American, at least half of the jury was required to be European or American men, with the justification given that juries in these cases had to be "acquainted with feelings and dispositions."
During the 20th century, the jury system in British India came under criticism from both colonial officials and independence activists. The system received no mentions in the 1950 Indian Constitution and went unimplemented in many jurisdictions after independence. In 1958, the Law Commission of India recommended its abolition in the 14th commission report that was submitted to the Indian government. Jury trials in India were gradually abolished during the 1960s, culminating with the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, which was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Evolution of independent judiciary
The Sapru Committee Report, published in 1945, considered the judiciary in detail and reiterated what the Government of India Act 1935 had set out: a Federal Court of India would be established as the highest court. To separate the judiciary from the executive, the Sapru Committee suggested that judges have fixed salaries and tenures, and that they could only be removed for gross misbehaviour. Judges were to be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice. The committee appointed to deal with judicial questions as part of the Constituent Assembly in 1946 was influenced by the Sapru Report, though there was concern over the power given to the President. Jawaharlal Nehru, however, supported the Sapru Committee's proposals. In 1949, Nehru said that Constituent Assembly judges ought to be individuals of "the highest integrity," who could "stand up against the executive government, and whoever may come in their way." B. R. Ambedkar emphasized the need for judicial independence stating, "There can be no difference of opinion in the House that our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself." Finally, the Constitution stated that "Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the tates as the President may deem necessary for the purpose," given that "in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted."In his book Independence and Accountability of the Indian Higher Judiciary, Arghya Sengupta has analysed the balance between judicial independence and public accountability.
Judicial hierarchy
Courts structure
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court established by the Constitution. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court is a federal court, guardian of the Constitution, and the highest court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution lay down the court's composition and jurisdiction. Primarily, it is an appellate court that takes up appeals against judgments of the High Courts of the states and territories. It also takes writ petitions in cases of serious human rights violations or any petition filed under Article 32, which is the right to a constitutional remedy, or if a serious case involves needs immediate resolution.The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice and 33 judges.
It first sat on 26 January 1950, the day India's Constitution came into force, and thereafter delivered more than 24,000 reported judgements.
Proceedings are conducted in English only. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, which exists to regulate its practices and procedures. Article 145 was amended and is governed by the Supreme Court Rules of 2013.