Judiciary

Judicial activism refers to a proactive role played by the judiciary beyond simply adjudicating disputes between parties. The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL), also called Social Action Litigation (SAL). In normal course of law, only the aggrieved person — someone whose rights have been violated or who is directly involved in a dispute — can approach the courts. This changed around 1979. In 1979, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case filed not by the aggrieved persons themselves but by others on their behalf. Since this case involved a matter of public interest, such cases came to be known as public interest litigations. Around the same time, the Supreme Court took up the case about rights of prisoners. This opened the gates for public-spirited citizens and voluntary organisations to seek judicial intervention for protection of existing rights, betterment of life conditions of the poor, protection of the environment, and many other public interest issues. The judiciary began considering cases merely on the basis of newspaper reports and postal complaints received by the court — hence the term "judicial activism." **Expansion of Rights through PIL:** Through PIL, the court has expanded the idea of rights — clean air, unpolluted water, decent living are treated as rights for the entire society. PIL has made rights meaningful for the poor and disadvantaged sections. The court considered cases involving: blinding of jail inmates by police, inhuman working conditions in stone quarries, sexual exploitation of children, forced labour, and others. **Impact of Judicial Activism:** - Democratised the judicial system by giving groups (not just individuals) access to courts. - Forced executive accountability. - Made the electoral system more free and fair — the court asked election candidates to file affidavits disclosing assets, income, and educational qualifications. - Judiciary ruled bandhs and hartals illegal. - Gave directions to CBI to initiate investigations against politicians in hawala, Narasimha Rao, and illegal petrol pump cases. **Negative side of PIL and judicial activism:** - Overburdened the courts. - Blurred the line of distinction between the executive/legislature and the judiciary — reducing air/sound pollution, investigating corruption, electoral reform are matters for the administration under legislative supervision, not for courts. - Created strains on democratic balance of power between the three organs — democratic government requires each organ to respect the powers and jurisdiction of the others. The practice of PIL is now accepted in many other countries. The Constitution of South Africa has incorporated PIL in its bill of rights, making it a fundamental right for citizens to bring before the Constitutional Court cases of violation of other persons' rights.

Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court (or High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law. If the Court arrives at the conclusion that the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, such a law is declared unconstitutional and inapplicable. This is arguably the most important power of the Supreme Court. The term "judicial review" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, the fact that India has a written constitution and that the Supreme Court can strike down a law that goes against fundamental rights implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Two constitutional provisions together establish this: 1. **Article 32:** The Supreme Court can restore fundamental rights by issuing writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.). High Courts can do the same under Article 226. 2. **Article 13:** The Supreme Court can declare a concerned law as unconstitutional and therefore non-operational. Together these two provisions establish the Supreme Court as both the protector of fundamental rights and the interpreter of the Constitution. Judicial review extends in two directions: - **On fundamental rights:** If a law violates fundamental rights, it can be struck down. - **On federal distribution of powers:** If the central government makes a law on a subject that States claim belongs to the State List, States can go to the Supreme Court. If the Court agrees, it declares the law unconstitutional. The review power thus covers laws passed by State legislatures as well. Judicial review, combined with writ powers, makes the judiciary very powerful. The practice of entertaining PILs further added to the judiciary's capacity to protect rights of citizens. The review power has been at the centre of Parliament-Judiciary conflicts. A key controversy was whether Parliament could abridge fundamental rights through constitutional amendments. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) settled this by establishing the Basic Structure doctrine — even through amendment, Parliament cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and the Judiciary reserves to itself the right to determine what constitutes basic structure. The Supreme Court, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), invalidated a provision of the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) that sought to exclude judicial review. This was because judicial review itself was declared a 'basic feature' of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot be used to enlarge that power into an absolute one or to destroy the basic features of the Constitution.

Subordinate courts function below and under the High Court at district and lower levels. They are so called because of their subordination to the state High Court. Articles 233–237 in Part VI of the Constitution regulate the organisation of subordinate courts and ensure their independence from the executive. ### Constitutional Provisions (Articles 233–237): 1. **Appointment of District Judges (Art. 233):** Made by Governor in consultation with the High Court. Qualifications: (a) not already in government service; (b) advocate/pleader for 7 years; (c) recommended by HC. 2. **Other judicial service appointments (Art. 234):** Made by Governor after consultation with SPSC and HC. 3. **Control over subordinate courts (Art. 235):** High Court controls posting, promotion, and leave of persons in judicial service below district judge level. 4. **Interpretation (Art. 236):** The expression 'district judge' includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge. The expression 'judicial service' means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge. 5. **Application to certain magistrates (Art. 237):** The Governor may direct that the above-mentioned provisions relating to persons in the state judicial service would apply to any class or classes of magistrates in the state. ### Hierarchy of Courts: **Civil side:** High Court → District Court (District Judge) → Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge Senior Division) → Court of Munsiff (Civil Judge Junior Division) **Criminal side:** High Court → Sessions Court (Sessions Judge = same person as District Judge) → Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (up to 7 years imprisonment) → Court of Judicial Magistrate (up to 3 years imprisonment) **District Judge:** Highest judicial authority in district. Original AND appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases. Sessions Judge can impose any sentence including capital punishment — but capital punishment is subject to HC confirmation. Exercises both judicial and administrative powers. Has supervisory powers over all subordinate courts in the district. Appeals against his orders and judgements lie to the High Court. **Subordinate courts in metropolitan cities:** City civil courts (chief judges) on civil side; courts of metropolitan magistrates on criminal side. **Small causes courts:** Established in some states and presidency towns. Decide civil cases of small value in summary manner. Decisions final, but High Court possesses power of revision. **Panchayat Courts:** Nyaya Panchayat, Gram Kutchery, etc. — try petty civil and criminal cases in some states. ### National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Established under Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (in force from 9 November 1995). Based on Article 39A (free legal aid) and Articles 14, 22(1). Provides free and competent legal services to weaker sections on basis of equal opportunity. **Structure:** NALSA at national level; State Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services Committee in each state; District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Committees at district and taluk levels; Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for Supreme Court matters. **Functions:** Provide free and competent legal services to eligible persons; organise Lok Adalats for amicable settlement of disputes; organise legal awareness camps in rural areas. **Free legal services include:** (a) Payment of court fee, process fees and all other charges; (b) Providing service of lawyers in legal proceedings; (c) Obtaining and supply of certified copies of orders and documents; (d) Preparation of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents. **Eligible persons:** Women and children; SC/ST members; industrial workmen; victims of mass disaster/violence/floods/droughts/earthquakes/industrial disasters; disabled persons; persons in custody; persons with annual income ≤ ₹1 lakh (₹1.25 lakh for Supreme Court Legal Services Committee); victims of trafficking in human beings or begar. ### Lok Adalats: **Meaning:** "People's Court" based on Gandhian principles; part of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) system. Provides alternative resolution for expeditious and inexpensive justice. **Statutory status:** First post-independence Lok Adalat in Gujarat 1982. Given statutory status under Legal Services Authorities Act 1987. **Composition:** Generally consists of a judicial officer as chairman and a lawyer (advocate) and a social worker as members. **Jurisdiction:** Can deal with cases pending before courts AND pre-litigation disputes. Matters include matrimonial/family disputes, compoundable criminal cases, land acquisition cases, labour disputes, workmen's compensation cases, bank recovery cases, pension cases, housing board and slum clearance cases, housing finance cases, consumer grievance cases, electricity matters, telephone bill disputes, municipal matters including house tax cases, and cellular company disputes. No jurisdiction in non-compoundable offences. **Powers:** Has same powers as Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure (1908) regarding: (a) summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining on oath; (b) discovery and production of documents; (c) reception of evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning public records; (e) specifying own procedure for dispute determination. Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings under IPC; every Lok Adalat deemed Civil Court under Code of Criminal Procedure (1973). **Award:** Final, binding, and deemed decree of Civil Court — NO appeal lies against Lok Adalat award. No court fee; if already paid, refunded on settlement. **Benefits:** Procedural flexibility; speedy trial; direct interaction with judges through counsel; no strict application of procedural laws like Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act; no losing or winning side — grievance redressed and relationship restored. **Permanent Lok Adalats (2002 amendment):** Established to deal with cases pertaining to public utility services. Covers transport (air, road, water), postal/telegraph/telephone services, power/light/water supply, public conservancy/sanitation, hospital/dispensary services, and insurance services. Pecuniary jurisdiction up to ₹10 lakh (Central Government can increase). Can decide on merits if parties fail to reach settlement. Chairman is current or former district judge or person with higher judicial rank; two other members with experience in public utility services. Award final and binding. No jurisdiction in non-compoundable offences. ### Gram Nyayalayas: **Established:** Under Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008 to provide access to justice at grassroots level. **Structure:** Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Nyayadhikari (presiding officer) appointed by State Government in consultation with High Court. Established for each Panchayat at intermediate level or group of contiguous Panchayats. **Nature:** Mobile court that goes to villages. Nyayadhikaris draw same salary and have same powers as First Class Magistrates. **Jurisdiction:** Exercises powers of both civil and criminal courts. Tries criminal cases, civil suits, and claims/disputes specified in First and Second Schedules of the Act. Central and State Governments can amend the schedules. **Procedure:** Follows summary procedure. Not bound by Indian Evidence Act — guided by principles of natural justice and High Court rules. Uses conciliators to settle disputes by conciliation. **Execution:** Judgments and orders deemed decrees; follow summary procedure for execution. **Appeals:** Criminal cases appeal to Sessions Court (within 6 months); civil case

To be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, a person must meet specific qualifications outlined in the Constitution. The primary criteria include being a citizen of India. Beyond citizenship, the individual must satisfy one of three professional requirements: either have served as a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for a minimum of five years, or have been an advocate of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for at least ten years. Alternatively, a person may be appointed if, in the opinion of the president, they are a distinguished jurist. It is notable that the Constitution does not prescribe a minimum age for appointment to the Supreme Court bench.

Gram Nyayalayas are grassroots-level courts established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 to provide accessible justice to citizens, particularly in rural areas. The core purpose of these courts is to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen due to social, economic, or other disabilities. Each Gram Nyayalaya functions as a court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class, presided over by a Nyayadhikari (judicial officer) appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. These presiding officers hold the same rank, salary, and powers as First Class Magistrates working under High Courts. One Gram Nyayalaya is established for every Panchayat at the intermediate level, or for a group of contiguous intermediate-level Panchayats in a district. Gram Nyayalayas operate as mobile courts, with their seat located at the headquarters of the intermediate Panchayat but with the authority to travel to villages and dispose of cases on-site. They exercise the powers of both Criminal and Civil Courts, trying cases and disputes as specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Act. The Central and State Governments have power to amend these schedules according to their respective legislative competence. A defining feature of Gram Nyayalayas is their emphasis on conciliation. These courts attempt to settle disputes by bringing about settlement between parties using appointed conciliators. They follow summary procedures in criminal trials and modified civil procedures, and they are not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but instead are guided by principles of natural justice.

Writ Jurisdiction refers to the power of the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens. Under writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is empowered to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. An aggrieved citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court to seek these writs without necessarily going through an appeal process, giving the jurisdiction an original character. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from its other forms of original jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in federal disputes is exclusive (no other court can hear such cases), its writ jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the High Courts. This means when a citizen's fundamental rights are violated, they have the option to approach either a High Court or the Supreme Court directly. An important distinction exists between writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of High Courts. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcing fundamental rights, whereas High Courts can issue writs for both fundamental rights enforcement and other purposes. Therefore, High Court writ jurisdiction is broader in scope. However, Parliament has the authority to extend the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction to cover other purposes as well.

Activators of judicial activism refer to various categories of social and human rights activists, groups, and individuals who engage with the judiciary to advance specific causes and rights. According to eminent jurist Upendra Baxi, these activators represent diverse constituencies that bring cases and issues before the courts, compelling judges to adopt an activist stance in response to societal demands. The activators are not the judges themselves, but rather the civil society groups, organizations, and individuals whose litigation strategies and advocacy push the judiciary to expand its scope and take a more proactive role in protecting rights and addressing social issues. These activators span multiple domains—from civil rights and consumer protection to environmental conservation and gender equality—creating pressure on the judiciary to intervene where the legislature and executive may have been inactive or ineffective.

The appointment of judges has never been free from political controversy — it is part of the political process, and the political philosophy of judges influences how the Constitution is interpreted. The Council of Ministers, Governors, Chief Ministers, and the Chief Justice of India all influence the process. **Appointment of Chief Justice of India (CJI):** Over the years, a convention developed whereby the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as CJI. This convention was broken twice: - In 1973, A.N. Ray was appointed as CJI superseding three senior judges. - In 1977, Justice M.U. Beg was appointed superseding Justice H.R. Khanna. From 1950 to 1973, the practice has been to appoint the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as the chief justice of India. This established convention was violated in 1973 when A.N. Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding three senior judges. Again in 1977, M.U. Beg was appointed as the chief justice of India by superseding the then senior-most judge. **Appointment of Other Judges:** Other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President after "consulting" the CJI. In the early interpretation, this meant the final decision rested with the Council of Ministers. The matter came before the Supreme Court repeatedly between 1982 and 1998. Initially the court felt the CJI's role was purely consultative; then it took the view that the CJI's opinion must be followed. Finally, the Supreme Court established the **collegium system**: the CJI should recommend names in consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Court. Thus, the Supreme Court established the principle of collegiality in making recommendations for appointments. At present, the decision of the group of senior judges carries greater weight than the executive in matters of judicial appointments. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. The chief justice is appointed by the president after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he deems necessary. The other judges are appointed by president after consultation with the chief justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems necessary. The consultation with the chief justice is obligatory in the case of appointment of a judge other than Chief justice. The Supreme Court has given different interpretation of the word 'consultation' in the above provision. In the First Judges case (1982), the Court held that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies exchange of views. But, in the Second Judges case (1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling and changed the meaning of the word consultation to concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chief Justice of India is binding on the President in the matters of appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. But, the Chief Justice would tender his advice on the matter after consulting two of his seniormost colleagues. Similarly, in the Third Judges case (1998), the Court opined that the consultation process to be adopted by the Chief justice of India requires 'consultation of plurality judges'. The sole opinion of the chief justice of India does not constitute the consultation process. He should consult a collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send the recommendation to the government. The court held that the recommendation made by the chief justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process are not binding on the government. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act of 2014 replaced the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in 2015, the Supreme Court declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void, restoring the collegium system. This discretion of the government was curtailed by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed to the office of the chief justice of India. **Appointment of District Judges:** District judges are appointed by the Governor of a state in consultation with the High Court. A person appointed as a district judge must not already be in the service of the Central or state government, must have been an advocate or pleader for seven years, and must be recommended by the High Court for appointment. **Removal of Judges:** Removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is extremely difficult. A judge can be removed only on the ground of **proven misbehaviour or incapacity**. The procedure: - A motion containing charges against the judge must be approved by **special majority in both Houses of Parliament**. - Special majority means: supporters of the motion must constitute (a) at least half of the total strength of the House, AND (b) two-thirds of those who actually take part in voting. - Unless there is general consensus among MPs, a judge cannot be removed. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his Office by an order of the president. The President can issue the removal order only after an address by Parliament has been presented to him in the same session for such removal. The address must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (ie, a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). The grounds of removal are two–proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This difficult removal procedure provides security of tenure to judges, which is essential for judicial independence. **Balance of powers:** In making appointments, the executive plays a crucial role; in removal, the legislature has the powers. This balance ensures both independent functioning and accountability. **Only one case of attempted removal:** So far, only one case of removal of a Supreme Court judge came up before Parliament. Though the motion got a two-thirds majority, it did not have the support of the majority of total strength of the House, and the judge was not removed. It is interesting to know that no judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far. The first case of impeachment is that of Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991–1993). Though the enquiry Committee found him guilty of misbehaviour, he could not be removed as the impeachment motion was defeated in the Lok Sabha. The Congress Party abstained from voting.

The original Constitution did not contain provisions on tribunals. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 added Part XIV-A to the Constitution ('Tribunals'), consisting of two Articles: - **Article 323A:** Administrative Tribunals (for service matters of public servants) - **Article 323B:** Tribunals for Other Matters **Purpose:** To provide speedy and inexpensive justice for specific categories of disputes by taking them out of civil courts and High Courts. ### Article 323A — Administrative Tribunals: Parliament can establish administrative tribunals for disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons in public services (Centre, states, local bodies, PSUs, public authorities). In pursuance, Parliament passed the **Administrative Tribunals Act 1985**. **Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):** - Set up 1985; Principal Bench at Delhi; 17 regular benches (as of 2019) — 15 at principal HC seats, plus Jaipur and Lucknow - Exercises original jurisdiction in service matters of: all-India services, Central civil services, civilian employees of defence services - Does NOT cover: defence forces personnel, Supreme Court officers/staff, Parliament Secretariat staff - Multi-member body: Chairman + Members; term: 5 years or age 65 (Chairman) / 62 (Members) - Not bound by Civil Procedure Code; guided by principles of natural justice - Filing fee: ₹50 (nominal) - Chandra Kumar case (1997): SC declared restriction on HC jurisdiction unconstitutional; appeals against CAT orders now go to division bench of concerned HC first (not directly to SC) **State Administrative Tribunals (SATs):** - Established on specific request of concerned state governments - As of 2019: SATs set up in 9 states (Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala) - Subsequently, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh SATs were abolished; Himachal Pradesh reestablished its SAT and Tamil Nadu has requested re-establishment - Haryana has requested establishment of SAT; Odisha has proposed abolition of its SAT - Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT): for two or more states - SATs exercise original jurisdiction in recruitment and service matters of state government employees - Chairman and members appointed by President after consultation with concerned state governor ### Article 323B — Tribunals for Other Matters: Parliament AND state legislatures can establish tribunals for: taxation, foreign exchange/import-export, industrial and labour, land reforms, ceiling on urban property, elections to Parliament/state legislatures, foodstuffs, rent and tenancy rights (rent added by 75th Amendment 1993). ### Key Differences between 323A and 323B: | Feature | Article 323A | Article 323B | |---------|-------------|-------------| | Subjects | Service matters only | Various matters (tax, labour, land, elections, etc.) | | Who can establish | Only Parliament | Parliament AND state legislatures | | Number of tribunals | One for Centre + one per state | Hierarchy of tribunals possible | **Chandra Kumar Case (1997):** SC declared provisions of BOTH Articles 323A and 323B which excluded HC/SC jurisdiction as unconstitutional. Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. Thus judicial remedies are now available against all tribunal orders.

Judicial accountability, as examined by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), pertains to the institutional mechanisms through which the judiciary can be held responsible for its performance and conduct. The NCRWC, headed by former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah and submitted in 2002, identified the judicial system as a significant area of concern. The Commission found that "the judicial system has not been able to meet even the modest expectations of the society. Its delays and costs are frustrating, its processes slow and uncertain." The source explicitly noted that the "trial system both on the civil and criminal side has utterly broken down." In response, the NCRWC recommended the establishment of institutional frameworks including a National Judicial Council and State Judicial Councils for oversight and planning. Accountability mechanisms recommended included a committee of the National Judicial Commission to examine complaints of deviant behaviour by Supreme Court and High Court judges. The Commission also recommended that judgements should ordinarily be delivered within 90 days from the conclusion of cases, along with time-bound clearance of arrears in courts.

Family Courts are specialized judicial institutions established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to provide expeditious, inexpensive, and informal resolution of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. They represent a departure from traditional adversarial court proceedings by emphasizing conciliation and settlement over rigid procedural formalism. **Historical Background and Need:** The establishment of Family Courts was urged by women's associations, civil society organizations, and the Law Commission (59th Report, 1974), which stressed that courts should adopt "a radically different approach" when dealing with family disputes, focusing on settlement efforts before trial rather than traditional adversarial procedures. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide a special procedure for family matters, but courts continued applying traditional civil procedure. This gap necessitated specialized Family Courts. **Constitutional and Statutory Framework:** Established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, these courts function within the judicial hierarchy below High Courts but are distinct from ordinary district and subordinate courts in their mandate and procedures. **Core Objectives:** (1) Create specialized courts with necessary expertise to deal with family matters expeditiously; (2) Institute a mechanism for conciliation of family disputes; (3) Provide an inexpensive remedy; (4) Foster flexibility and an informal atmosphere in proceedings. **Jurisdiction and Powers:** Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial relief (nullity, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, validity of marriage/matrimonial status), property of spouses, legitimacy of persons, guardianship or custody of minors, and maintenance of wife, children, and parents. **Conciliation Mandate:** Family Courts are obliged to first attempt reconciliation or settlement between parties, during which proceedings are informal and rigid procedural rules do not apply. Social welfare agencies, counselors, and medical/welfare experts may be associated during conciliation. **Representation and Evidence:** Parties are not entitled as of right to legal representation, though courts may seek assistance from legal experts as amicus curiae. Rules of evidence and procedure are simplified to enable effective dispute resolution. **Appeals:** Only one right of appeal lies from a Family Court, which is to the High Court.

Apprehensions of judicial activism refer to the fears and concerns that arise due to the judiciary's proactive role, particularly in areas traditionally falling under the legislature and executive. Jurist Upendra Baxi categorized these fears into several types. Ideological fears question whether judges are overstepping their bounds and usurping the powers of the legislature, executive, or other autonomous institutions. Epistemic fears relate to whether judges possess adequate knowledge in specialized fields like economics or science to make informed decisions. Management fears stem from the concern that an increased workload due to judicial activism, such as public interest litigation, could exacerbate existing problems of case arrears. Legitimation fears worry about the judiciary losing its symbolic and instrumental authority if executive branches bypass or ignore its orders, potentially eroding public faith. Democratic fears examine whether a proliferation of public interest litigation fosters or depletes the future potential of democracy itself. Lastly, biographic fears reflect the personal concerns of judges regarding their future standing after retirement if they extensively engage in judicial activism.

Lok Adalats are forums for amicable settlement of disputes that are either pending in court or at the pre-litigation stage (not yet brought before a court). The term "Lok Adalat" means "People's Court" and is based on Gandhian principles. The Supreme Court has described it as "an old form of adjudicating system prevailed in ancient India" and as one of the components of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system. Lok Adalats were created to address the problem of court backlogs and the lengthy, expensive, and tedious procedures of regular courts. The first Lok Adalat camp in the post-independence era was organised in Gujarat in 1982 and proved highly successful. Initially functioning as a voluntary and conciliatory agency without statutory backing, the institution was given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 due to its growing popularity. The fundamental principle underlying Lok Adalats is that proceedings are based on negotiation, conciliation, and persuasive approaches rather than adversarial processes. As stated in the source, "In Lok Adalat proceedings, there are no victors and vanquished and, thus, no rancour." The Lok Adalat operates through a team of specially trained conciliators typically comprising a judicial officer (chairman), a lawyer, and a social worker.