›India has a single integrated judicial system — no separate State courts, unlike the USA which has a double system of courts (federal and state).
›Structure is pyramidal: Supreme Court → High Courts → District/Subordinate Courts.
›The Supreme Court was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India established under the Government of India Act of 1935.
+ 31 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Supreme Court of India is described as one of the most powerful courts in the world. It functions within the limitations imposed by the Constitution, which defines its functions, responsibilities, and jurisdiction. The Constitution provides for a single integrated judicial system — unlike some other federal countries, India does not have separate State courts. The structure is pyramidal: Supreme Court at the top, High Courts below, and district/subordinate courts at the lowest level. Lower courts function under the direct superintendence of higher courts.
Unlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top and the high courts below it. This single system of courts, adopted from the Government of India Act of 1935, enforces both Central laws as well as the state laws. In contrast, the USA has a double system of courts — one for the centre (federal judiciary) and the other for the states (state judiciary). The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India established under the Government of India Act of 1935. However, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is greater than that of its predecessor because the Supreme Court has replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.
The Supreme Court exercises four distinct types of jurisdiction:
**Original Jurisdiction:** Cases that can be directly considered by the Supreme Court without going to lower courts first. This covers federal matters — disputes between the Union and States, or between States themselves. The Supreme Court alone can deal with such cases; High Courts and lower courts cannot. In this capacity the Court settles disputes and interprets the powers of Union and State governments as laid down in the Constitution. As a federal court, the Supreme Court decides disputes between different units of the Indian Federation — between the Centre and one or more states, or between the Centre and any state(s) on one side and one or more other states on the other side, or between two or more states. In these federal disputes, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, meaning no other court can decide such disputes and it has the power to hear them in the first instance, not by way of appeal.
**Writ Jurisdiction:** Any individual whose fundamental right has been violated can directly move the Supreme Court for remedy under Article 32. The Supreme Court can issue special orders in the form of writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.). High Courts can also issue writs under Article 226, so the aggrieved person may choose either forum. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and not for other purposes. High Courts, on the other hand, can issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for other purposes, meaning the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that of the Supreme Court. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding federal disputes is exclusive, while regarding disputes relating to fundamental rights it is concurrent with High Courts jurisdiction. The Parliament can confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for other purposes also.
**Appellate Jurisdiction:** The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. Appeals from High Court decisions are admitted when the High Court certifies the case involves a serious matter of interpretation of law or the Constitution. In criminal cases, if a lower court has sentenced a person to death, an appeal can be made. The Supreme Court can also decide to admit appeals even when the High Court has not certified them. In appellate jurisdiction, the Court reconsiders the case and legal issues — if it finds a different meaning, it changes the ruling and gives a new interpretation. The Supreme Court has not only succeeded the Federal Court of India but also replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal. Appellate jurisdiction is classified under four heads: appeals in constitutional matters, appeals in civil matters, appeals in criminal matters, and appeals by special leave.
**Advisory Jurisdiction:** The President of India can refer any matter of public importance or that which involves interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for advice under this provision. However, the Supreme Court is not bound to give advice, and the President is not bound to accept it. In disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties, the Supreme Court 'must' tender its opinion to the President. Utility: it allows government to seek legal opinion before acting (preventing unnecessary litigation later) and allows suitable changes in legislation or action in light of the advice.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts within India. The Supreme Court itself is not bound by its own decisions and can review them at any time (Article 137). All civil and judicial authorities in India are required to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Article 144).
All key facts
›India has a single integrated judicial system — no separate State courts, unlike the USA which has a double system of courts (federal and state).
›Structure is pyramidal: Supreme Court → High Courts → District/Subordinate Courts.
›The Supreme Court was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India established under the Government of India Act of 1935.
›The Supreme Court has replaced the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal, giving it greater jurisdiction than its predecessor.
›Original jurisdiction: disputes between Union and States or between States; Supreme Court alone has this power (exclusive original jurisdiction).
›Original jurisdiction disputes must involve a question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends; questions of political nature are excluded.
›Any suit brought before the Supreme Court by a private citizen against the Centre or a state cannot be entertained under exclusive original jurisdiction.
›Original jurisdiction does not extend to: pre-Constitution treaties; disputes excluded by specific treaties; inter-state water disputes; matters referred to Finance Commission; adjustment of expenses/pensions between Centre and states; ordinary commercial disputes; recovery of damages by a state against the Centre.
›The first suit under original jurisdiction was brought in 1961 by West Bengal challenging the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; the Supreme Court dismissed the suit upholding the Act's validity.
›
borrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitutionpreamblehigh court
Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
›PIL originated around 1979 when the SC heard a case filed not by the aggrieved but by others on their behalf.
›PIL is also called Social Action Litigation (SAL).
›In 1979, the SC also took up rights of prisoners — this further opened up PIL.
+ 27 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›PIL originated around 1979 when the SC heard a case filed not by the aggrieved but by others on their behalf.
›PIL is also called Social Action Litigation (SAL).
›In 1979, the SC also took up rights of prisoners — this further opened up PIL.
›PIL allows public-spirited citizens, social organisations, and lawyers to file on behalf of the needy.
›Judicial activism: court can take cognisance of cases from newspaper reports and postal complaints.
›Bandhs and hartals declared illegal through judicial activism.
›Court directed candidates to file affidavits disclosing assets, income, and educational qualifications.
›Negative side: overburdening courts; blurring separation of powers.
›South Africa has constitutionalised PIL as a fundamental right.
›The term "judicial activism" was first coined in 1947 by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., an American historian and educator, in the USA. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›In India, judicial activism was introduced in the mid-1970s. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, and Justice D.A. Desai were pioneers of judicial activism in India. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
borrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitutionpreamblecabinet committees
Judicial Review
›Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution — it is implied.
›Based on: (a) India's written constitution, and (b) SC's power to strike down laws violating fundamental rights.
›Article 13: laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.
+ 37 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution — it is implied.
›Based on: (a) India's written constitution, and (b) SC's power to strike down laws violating fundamental rights.
›Article 13: laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.
›Article 32: SC can issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.
›SC can review laws on two grounds: (1) violation of fundamental rights; (2) violation of federal distribution of powers.
›Judicial review applies to laws passed by both Parliament and State legislatures.
›Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): Parliament cannot violate the basic structure even through amendments.
›Judiciary (not Parliament) decides what constitutes basic structure.
›The Indian Constitution horizontally fragments power across institutions like the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary to ensure checks and balances and prevent subversion of the Constitution.
›Judicial review has been declared an element of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
›The Minerva Mills case (1980): invalidated a provision of the 42nd Amendment that excluded judicial review, affirming that judicial review is a 'basic feature'.
›The Supreme Court clarified in the Minerva Mills case (1980) that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot be expanded to abrogate the Constitution's basic features.
borrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitutionpreamblearticle 368 amendment procedure
Subordinate Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution
›Articles 233–237 (Part VI) govern subordinate courts
›District Judge qualifications: not in government service + 7 years advocacy + HC recommendation
›District/Sessions Judge: same person — civil cases = District Judge, criminal cases = Sessions Judge
+ 40 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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
All key facts
›Articles 233–237 (Part VI) govern subordinate courts
›District Judge qualifications: not in government service + 7 years advocacy + HC recommendation
›District/Sessions Judge: same person — civil cases = District Judge, criminal cases = Sessions Judge
›Capital punishment by Sessions Judge requires HC confirmation
›Article 235: HC controls subordinate courts' postings, promotions, leave
›District Judge exercises both judicial and administrative powers with supervisory authority over all subordinate courts in district
›Small causes courts decide civil cases of small value in summary manner; decisions final but High Court has power of revision
›NALSA: established 1987 (in force 1995) under Article 39A
›NALSA structure includes State Legal Services Authorities, High Court Legal Services Committees, District Legal Services Authorities, Taluk Legal Services Committees, and Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
›Lok Adalat award: final, binding, no appeal; court fee refunded
›First Lok Adalat in post-independence era: Gujarat 1982
›Lok Adalat generally consists of judicial officer as chairman, lawyer and social worker as members
borrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitutionpreamblecabinet committees
Qualifications of Judges
›A person must be a citizen of India to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›A candidate must have served as a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›Alternatively, a candidate must have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
+ 2 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›A person must be a citizen of India to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›A candidate must have served as a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›Alternatively, a candidate must have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›A person can also be appointed if they are a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
›The Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch26-supreme-court.md
Gram Nyayalayas
›The Gram Nyayalayas Act was enacted in 2008 to provide access to justice at the grassroots level and at citizens' doorsteps
›The Nyayadhikari (presiding officer) of a Gram Nyayalaya is appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court
›Gram Nyayalayas are courts of Judicial Magistrate of the first class
+ 13 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›The Gram Nyayalayas Act was enacted in 2008 to provide access to justice at the grassroots level and at citizens' doorsteps
›The Nyayadhikari (presiding officer) of a Gram Nyayalaya is appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court
›Gram Nyayalayas are courts of Judicial Magistrate of the first class
›Each Gram Nyayalaya is established for every Panchayat at intermediate level or a group of contiguous intermediate-level Panchayats
›Gram Nyayalayas operate as mobile courts with headquarters at intermediate Panchayat headquarters but travel to villages to dispose cases
›These courts exercise powers of both Criminal and Civil Courts
›Gram Nyayalayas attempt to settle disputes through conciliation using appointed conciliators
›Criminal trials follow summary procedure
›Civil suits follow special procedure as provided in the Act
›Gram Nyayalayas are not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but follow principles of natural justice
›Judgments and orders are deemed decrees with summary execution procedures
›Appeals in criminal cases lie to the Court of Session (to be disposed of within six months)
Writ Jurisdiction
›The Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for enforcement of fundamental rights.
›Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original jurisdiction, meaning an aggrieved citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court without going through appeal.
›Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is concurrent with High Court jurisdiction—both courts possess this power simultaneously.
+ 3 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›The Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for enforcement of fundamental rights.
›Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is original jurisdiction, meaning an aggrieved citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court without going through appeal.
›Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is concurrent with High Court jurisdiction—both courts possess this power simultaneously.
›The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to enforcement of fundamental rights only.
›The writ jurisdiction of High Courts is wider than that of the Supreme Court, as High Courts can issue writs for purposes beyond fundamental rights enforcement.
›Parliament can confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for purposes other than fundamental rights enforcement.
Activators of Judicial Activism
›Upendra Baxi, an eminent jurist, has delineated a typology of 15 categories of social and human rights activists who activated judicial activism.
›Civil Rights Activists primarily focus on civil and political rights issues.
›People Rights Activists focus on social and economic rights within contexts of state repression of people's movements.
+ 13 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›Upendra Baxi, an eminent jurist, has delineated a typology of 15 categories of social and human rights activists who activated judicial activism.
›Civil Rights Activists primarily focus on civil and political rights issues.
›People Rights Activists focus on social and economic rights within contexts of state repression of people's movements.
›Consumer Rights Groups raise issues of consumer rights within the framework of accountability of the polity and economy.
›Bonded Labour Groups seek judicial activism for the annihilation of wage slavery in India.
›Citizens for Environmental Action activate an activist judiciary to combat environmental degradation and pollution.
›Citizen Groups against Large Irrigation Projects ask the Indian judiciary to cease and desist from ordering against mega irrigation projects.
›Rights of Child Groups focus on child labour, right to literacy, juveniles in custodial institutions, and rights of children born to sex workers.
›Custodial Rights Groups include prisoners' rights groups, women under state 'protective' custody, and persons under preventive detention.
›Poverty Rights Groups litigate issues concerning drought and famine relief and urban impoverished populations.
›Indigenous People's Rights Groups agitate for issues of forest dwellers, citizens of the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and identity rights.
›Women's Rights Groups agitate for gender equality, gender-based violence, harassment, rape, and dowry murders.
›Bar-based Groups agitate for issues concerning autonomy and accountability of the Indian judiciary.
›Media Autonomy Groups focus on autonomy and accountability of the press and state-owned mass media instruments.
›Assorted Lawyer-Based Groups agitate for various causes and are described as critically influential.
›Assorted Individual Petitioners include freelance activist individuals.
Appointment and Removal of Judges
›Convention: senior-most judge of SC appointed as CJI — broken in 1973 (A.N. Ray) and 1977 (M.U. Beg).
›Judges of SC and HC appointed by President after consulting CJI.
›Collegium system: CJI consults four senior-most SC judges for recommending appointments.
+ 37 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›Convention: senior-most judge of SC appointed as CJI — broken in 1973 (A.N. Ray) and 1977 (M.U. Beg).
›Judges of SC and HC appointed by President after consulting CJI.
›Collegium system: CJI consults four senior-most SC judges for recommending appointments.
›Removal requires: proven misbehaviour or incapacity + special majority in BOTH Houses.
›Special majority: at least 50% of total House strength AND 2/3 of those voting.
›Appointments: executive plays crucial role. Removal: legislature has power.
›Only one removal attempt in SC history — failed because total House majority was not achieved.
›Financial independence: judges' salaries not subject to legislative approval.
›At present (2019), the Supreme Court consists of thirty-four judges (one chief justice and thirty-three other judges).
›In 2019, the centre notified an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges from thirty-one to thirty-four, including the Chief Justice of India. This followed the enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
›Originally, the strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other judges). The Parliament has increased this number of other judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to seventeen in 1977, to twenty-five in 1986, to thirty in 2008 and to thirty-three in 2019.
borrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitutionpreamblecabinet committees
Tribunals (Administrative and Other)
›Part XIV-A added by 42nd Amendment 1976
›Two Articles only: 323A (service matters) and 323B (other matters)
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.
All key facts
›Part XIV-A added by 42nd Amendment 1976
›Two Articles only: 323A (service matters) and 323B (other matters)
›CAT set up 1985; 17 benches as of 2019; Principal Bench at Delhi
›15 CAT regular benches operate at principal seats of high courts; 2 additional regular benches at Jaipur and Lucknow
›CAT benches also hold circuit sittings at other seats of high courts
›CAT fee: ₹50 nominal
›CAT Chairman: term 5 years or age 65; Members: 5 years or age 62
›CAT does NOT cover defence forces, SC officers, Parliament Secretariat staff
›Chandra Kumar case (1997): appeals against CAT go to HC division bench first
›SATs established in 9 states (Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala)
›Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh SATs have been abolished; Himachal Pradesh subsequently reestablished its SAT; Tamil Nadu has requested re-establishment
›Haryana has requested to establish SAT; Odisha has proposed abolition of its SAT
land acquisition actland reforms post independenceborrowed featuresconstituent assemblyequality political and socialfunctions of constitution
Judicial Accountability
›The judicial system was identified as a specific area of concern by the NCRWC for failing to meet societal expectations
›The NCRWC found that judicial delays and costs are frustrating, with slow and uncertain processes
›The civil and criminal trial systems were assessed as having "utterly broken down"
+ 5 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›The judicial system was identified as a specific area of concern by the NCRWC for failing to meet societal expectations
›The NCRWC found that judicial delays and costs are frustrating, with slow and uncertain processes
›The civil and criminal trial systems were assessed as having "utterly broken down"
›The Commission recommended establishment of a National Judicial Commission to recommend appointment of judges, comprising the Chief Justice of India (as chairman), two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union law minister and one person nominated by the president
›A committee of the National Judicial Commission was recommended to examine complaints of deviant behaviour of Supreme Court and High Court judges
›The NCRWC recommended that judgements should ordinarily be delivered within 90 days from conclusion of cases
›National Judicial Councils and Judicial Councils in States were recommended to be set up for preparation of plans and annual budget proposals
›Each High Court was recommended to prepare strategic plans for time-bound clearance of arrears with no case remaining pending for more than one year
Family Courts
›The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to establish Family Courts to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes related to marriage and family affairs — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Several associations of women, other organizations and individuals urged the establishment of Family Courts where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results, eliminating rigid rules of procedure and evidence — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) stressed that courts should adopt a radically different approach when dealing with family disputes, focusing on settlement efforts before trial — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
+ 11 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to establish Family Courts to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes related to marriage and family affairs — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Several associations of women, other organizations and individuals urged the establishment of Family Courts where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results, eliminating rigid rules of procedure and evidence — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) stressed that courts should adopt a radically different approach when dealing with family disputes, focusing on settlement efforts before trial — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide a special procedure for suits and proceedings concerning family matters — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The main objectives for setting up Family Courts are: (i) to create a specialized court with necessary expertise for expeditious disposal of family matters; (ii) to institute a mechanism for conciliation of family disputes; (iii) to provide an inexpensive remedy; (iv) to have flexibility and an informal atmosphere in proceedings — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Family Courts are established by State Governments in consultation with the High Courts — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›State Governments are mandated to set up a Family Court in every city or town with a population exceeding one million — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›
high courtsubordinate courtsfundamental rightsalternative dispute resolutionlok adalats
Apprehensions of Judicial Activism
›Jurist Upendra Baxi presented a typology of fears generated by judicial activism. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›These fears are designed to promote "nervous rationality" among India's justices. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Ideological fears** question if judges are usurping powers of the legislature, executive, or other autonomous institutions. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
+ 5 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›Jurist Upendra Baxi presented a typology of fears generated by judicial activism. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›These fears are designed to promote "nervous rationality" among India's justices. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Ideological fears** question if judges are usurping powers of the legislature, executive, or other autonomous institutions. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Epistemic fears** concern whether judges have enough knowledge in specialized matters like economics or science. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Management fears** relate to the additional litigation workload created by judicial activism and its impact on arrears. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Legitimation fears** consider the potential depletion of the judiciary's authority if its orders are bypassed, leading to a loss of public faith. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Democratic fears** question whether widespread public interest litigation nurtures or depletes democracy's future potential. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
›**Biographic fears** involve judges' concerns about their national standing after superannuation if they "overdo" judicial activism. (ch28-judicial-activism.md)
Lok Adalats
›Lok Adalat is a forum for settlement of cases pending in court or at pre-litigation stage through compromise or amicable settlement
›The first Lok Adalat camp in post-independence India was organised in Gujarat in 1982
›Initially, Lok Adalats functioned without statutory backing; statutory status was provided under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
+ 17 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
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.
All key facts
›Lok Adalat is a forum for settlement of cases pending in court or at pre-litigation stage through compromise or amicable settlement
›The first Lok Adalat camp in post-independence India was organised in Gujarat in 1982
›Initially, Lok Adalats functioned without statutory backing; statutory status was provided under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
›State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats
›A Lok Adalat typically consists of a judicial officer as chairman, a lawyer (advocate), and a social worker as members
›Lok Adalats have jurisdiction over cases pending before any court or matters falling within court jurisdiction but not yet brought before a court
›Matters handled by Lok Adalats include matrimonial/family disputes, compoundable criminal offences, land acquisition cases, labour disputes, workmen's compensation cases, bank recovery cases, pension cases, housing cases, consumer grievance cases, electricity matters, and disputes relating to telephone bills
›Lok Adalats have no jurisdiction over cases or matters relating to offences that are not compoundable under law
›Cases pending in court can be referred to Lok Adalat if parties agree, one party applies to the court, or the court is satisfied the matter is appropriate
›Pre-litigation disputes can be referred to Lok Adalat by the organising agency on receipt of application from any party
›Lok Adalat has the same powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) regarding summoning witnesses, discovery of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits, and requisitioning public records
Writ jurisdiction: under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts); aggrieved person can choose either.
›The Supreme Court can issue writs only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights; High Courts can issue writs for other purposes as well.
›Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court regarding federal disputes is exclusive; regarding fundamental rights it is concurrent with High Courts.
›The Parliament can confer on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for purposes other than enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
›Appellate jurisdiction: High Court must certify case involves substantial question of law of general importance; SC can also admit appeals on its own discretion.
›Appellate jurisdiction classified under four heads: constitutional matters, civil matters, criminal matters, and appeals by special leave.
›In civil cases, the monetary limit of ₹20,000 for appeals to the Supreme Court was removed by the 30th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972.
›In criminal matters, an appeal lies as a matter of right if High Court reversed acquittal and sentenced to death, or took case from subordinate court and sentenced to death.
›In 1970, Parliament enlarged Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction to include cases where High Court sentenced accused to imprisonment for life or ten years after reversing acquittal or taking case from subordinate court.
›If High Court reversed conviction and acquitted accused, there is no right to appeal to Supreme Court.
›Appellate jurisdiction extends to all civil and criminal cases in which Federal Court of India had jurisdiction but which are not covered under specified appellate jurisdiction.
›Advisory jurisdiction: under Article 143, President can seek SC opinion on matters of public importance or disputes arising from pre-Constitution treaties.
›In matters of public importance, Supreme Court may tender or refuse to tender opinion; in disputes from pre-Constitution treaties, it 'must' tender opinion.
›Advisory opinions are not binding on President; however, they facilitate government in obtaining authoritative legal opinion.
›By 2019, President made fifteen references to Supreme Court under advisory jurisdiction.
›The fifteen advisory references include: Delhi Laws Act (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari Union (1960), Sea Customs Act (1963), Keshav Singh's case (1964), Presidential Election (1974), Special Courts Bill (1978), Jammu and Kashmir Resettlement Act (1982), Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992), Rama Janma Bhumi case (1993), Consultation process for Chief Justice (1998), Natural gas and LNG legislative competence (2001), Gujarat Assembly Elections deferment (2002), Punjab Termination of Agreements Act (2004), and 2G spectrum verdict (2012).
›As a Court of Record, Supreme Court judgments and proceedings are recorded, have evidentiary value, cannot be questioned, and serve as legal precedents.
›The Supreme Court has power to punish for contempt of court with imprisonment up to six months or fine up to ₹2,000 or both.
›In 1991, Supreme Court ruled it has power to punish for contempt not only of itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts and tribunals functioning in entire country.
›Contempt of court can be civil (wilful disobedience of court order) or criminal (scandalizing court authority, prejudicing judicial proceedings, obstructing justice).
›Innocent publication and distribution of matter, fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, and comments on administrative side of judiciary do not amount to contempt of court.
›Judicial review is the power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders, declaring them illegal if found ultra-vires.
›The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and is guided by thirteen doctrines: Severability, Waiver, Eclipse, Territorial Nexus, Pith and Substance, Coloured Legislation, Implied Powers, Incidental/Ancillary Powers, Precedent, Occupied Field, Prospective Overruling, Harmonious Construction, and Liberal Interpretation.
›The Supreme Court decides disputes regarding the election of the President and Vice-President, possessing original, exclusive, and final authority in this regard.
›The Supreme Court can recommend the removal of the Chairman or members of UPSC to the President if found guilty of misbehaviour, and this advice is binding on the P
›Judicial activism is also known as "judicial dynamism". It is the antithesis of "judicial restraint". — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial activism is described as judges departing from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favour of progressive new social policies, involving social engineering, and occasionally intruding into legislative and executive matters. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial activism can be defined as law-making by judges through active interpretation of existing legislation to enhance its utility for social betterment. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial activism involves judges allowing personal views on public policy to guide decisions. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial activism is a procedure to evolve new principles, concepts, maxims, formulae, and relief to do justice or expand litigant standing and open courts for the needy or for litigation affecting society. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›PIL is considered the most popular form, or manifestation, of judicial activism. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial activism differs from judicial review in that it is a form of judicial review where judges participate in law-making policies, not just upholding or invalidating laws based on constitutional provisions, but also exercising their policy preferences. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Reasons for judicial activism include the near collapse of responsible government (when legislature and executive fail), citizens looking to the judiciary for rights protection, judicial enthusiasm for social reforms, legislative vacuum, and constitutional provisions giving judiciary scope for an active role. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Upendra Baxi identified various types of activists who activate judicial activism, including civil rights, people's rights, consumer rights, bonded labour, environmental, anti-large irrigation projects, child rights, custodial rights, poverty rights, indigenous people's rights, and women's rights groups. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›The Supreme Court in December 2007 warned against judicial adventurism, stating that judges must know their limits and should not try to run the government, encroaching on the functions of the legislature or executive. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›The Supreme Court highlighted that if the legislature or executive fail, the remedy lies with the people correcting defects through elections or lawful methods, not the judiciary taking over those functions due to lack of expertise and resources. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial restraint implies a limited role for judges to "say what the law is," leaving lawmaking to legislators and executives, and not allowing personal political values to influence judicial opinions. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Judicial restraint generally holds that the "original intent" of the authors of the constitution should guide the courts. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›The concept of judicial activism is inherent in judicial review, empowering the court to uphold the constitution and declare inconsistent laws and actions void. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›The expanded concept of locus standi in connection with PIL has expanded the jurisdictional limits of courts exercising judicial review. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Critics of the expanded role of the judiciary termed this expanded role as "judicial activism." — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Reasons for judicial activism also include legislative failure to discharge responsibilities, "hung" legislatures leading to weak governments, and situations where authorities avoid hard decisions by referring issues to courts. — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch28-judicial-activism.md
›Other reasons include the failure of legislature and executive to protect basic rights and the misuse of courts by
›Judicial review as a basic feature was reaffirmed in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), Minerva Mills case (1980), S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1987), P. Sambamurthy Case (1987), S.R. Bommai Case (1994), I.R. Coelho Case (2007), and Madras Bar Association Case (2014).
›In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) that kept election disputes involving the Prime Minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the jurisdiction of courts, stating it affected the basic structure of the constitution.
›The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) amended Article 368 to declare no limitation on Parliament's constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, including contravention of Fundamental Rights.
›The Supreme Court invalidated the provision of the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) that excluded judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980), declaring judicial review a 'basic feature' of the Constitution.
›The Supreme Court reiterated in the Minerva Mills case (1980) that the Parliament, having a limited amending power, cannot enlarge that very power into an absolute one or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
›The Waman Rao case (1981) clarified that the doctrine of basic structure would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973.
›Judicial review is one of the identified elements of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
›The powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, and 142 are recognized as elements of the Basic Structure.
›The powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 are recognized as elements of the Basic Structure.
›In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the Minerva Mills case (1980), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1987), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the P. Sambamurthy Case (1987), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the S.R. Bommai Case (1994), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the I.R. Coelho Case (2007), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›In the Madras Bar Association Case (2014), "Judicial review" was identified as an element of the basic structure.
›Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments.
›If, upon examination, legislative enactments or executive orders are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra-vires), the Supreme Court can declare them illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void).
›Laws declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court cannot be enforced by the Government.
›The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
›While interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court applies various doctrines, including Doctrine of Severability, Doctrine of Waiver, Doctrine of Eclipse, Doctrine of Territorial Nexus, Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, Doctrine of Implied Powers, Doctrine of Incidental and Ancillary Powers, Doctrine of Precedent, Doctrine of Occupied Field, Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, and Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation.
›Judicial activism is considered by some as a version of judicial review, especially in the USA, where judges participate in law-making policies and exercise their policy preferences.
›The concept of judicial activism is inherent in judicial review, empowering courts to uphold the Constitution.
›Judicial activism stresses the importance of judicial review and a powerful judiciary in protecting and promoting core rights.
›The expanded concept of 'locus standi' in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), through judicial interpretation, has expanded the jurisdictional limits of courts exercising judicial review.
›This expanded role of judicial review has been termed "judicial activism" by critics of the judiciary's expanded role.
›Judicial activism in constitutional cases falls under the rubric of judicial review when a court intervenes and strikes down duly enacted legislation.
›The Shankari Prasad case (1951) ruled that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights, and that c
›
Non-compoundable offences: outside Lok Adalat jurisdiction
›Permanent Lok Adalat (2002): for public utility services; pecuniary limit ₹10 lakh; can decide on merits if parties fail to reach settlement
›Public utility services covered by Permanent Lok Adalat: transport (air, road, water), postal/telegraph/telephone, power/light/water supply, public conservancy/sanitation, hospital/dispensary services, insurance services
›Permanent Lok Adalat Chairman: current or former district judge or person with higher judicial rank
›Gram Nyayalaya Act 2008: mobile courts at intermediate Panchayat level
›Gram Nyayalaya: not bound by Evidence Act; guided by natural justice
›Nyayadhikari draws same salary and has same powers as First Class Magistrate
›Gram Nyayalaya established for each Panchayat at intermediate level or group of contiguous Panchayats
›Gram Nyayalaya uses conciliators to settle disputes
›Family Courts Act 1984: mandatory in cities >1 million population
›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
›The State Legal Services Authority, High Court Legal Services Committee, District Legal Services Authorities, and Taluk Legal Services Committees are constituted to implement the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
›The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee administers legal services related to the Supreme Court of India
›Free legal services provided by NALSA include payment of court fees, provision of lawyers, certified copies of orders, and preparation of appeal documents
›Persons eligible for free legal services also include victims of trafficking in human beings or begar
›A Lok Adalat generally consists of a judicial officer as chairman and a lawyer (advocate) and a social worker as members
›Lok Adalats have jurisdiction over certain 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, disputes relating to telephone bills, and municipal matters including house tax cases
›The Lok Adalat has the same powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) regarding summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits, and requisitioning public records
›Proceedings before a Lok Adalat are deemed judicial proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (1860), and every Lok Adalat is deemed a Civil Court for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)
›Benefits of Lok Adalats include procedural flexibility, speedy trial, direct interaction with judges through counsel, and final, binding, non-appealable awards
›Permanent Lok Adalats were established to address the drawback that traditional Lok Adalats could not decide cases on merits if parties failed to reach a compromise, leading to delays
›Permanent Lok Adalats are designed for public utility services where urgent settlement is needed, even at the pre-litigation stage, to reduce the workload of regular courts
›If Lok Adalats are given power to decide cases on merits when parties fail to compromise, unnecessary delay in justice dispensation can be tackled
›Cases arising in relation to public utility services like Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Vidyut Board need urgent settlement at pre-litigation stage to reduce workload of regular courts
›The Chairman of a Permanent Lok Adalat is a current or former district judge or individual with higher judicial rank, and two other persons with experience in public utility services
›Public utility services covered by Permanent Lok Adalats include transport (air, road, water); postal, telegraph, or telephone services; supply of power, light, or water; public conservancy or sanitation; services in hospitals or dispensaries; and insurance services
›The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat is up to ₹10 lakhs, but the Central Government can increase this amount
›If parties fail to reach an agreement, a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits
›The award of a Permanent Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties and is decided by a majority of its members
›The Family Courts Act, 1984 aimed to promote conciliation and speedy settlement of disputes, eliminating rigid rules of
›
Appeals in civil cases lie to the District Court (to be disposed of within six months)
›Accused persons may file applications for plea bargaining
›The Central Government decided to meet non-recurring expenditure with a ceiling of ₹18 lakh per court (₹10 lakh for construction, ₹5 lakh for vehicle, ₹3 lakh for office equipment)
›More than 5,000 Gram Nyayalayas were expected to be set up with Central Government assistance of approximately ₹1,400 crores
›
The Parliament has progressively increased the strength of other judges of the Supreme Court, from seven in 1950 to thirty-three in 2019.
›The President appoints the Chief Justice after consultation with judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as deemed necessary.
›The President appoints other judges after consultation with the Chief Justice and such other judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as deemed necessary.
›Consultation with the Chief Justice is obligatory for the appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice.
›In the First Judges case (1982), the Supreme Court held that 'consultation' does not mean 'concurrence'.
›In the Second Judges case (1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling, stating that the advice of the Chief Justice of India is binding on the President for Supreme Court judge appointments and that the Chief Justice should consult two senior-most colleagues.
›In the Third Judges case (1998), the Court opined that the Chief Justice of India's consultation process requires a 'plurality of judges' (a collegium of four senior-most judges), and recommendations made without this compliance 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.
›In the Fourth Judges case (2015), the Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void, restoring the collegium system. The Court opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would affect the independence of the judiciary.
›The 1977 appointment of M.U. Beg as CJI also violated the convention by superseding the then senior-most judge.
›The Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993) ruled that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should alone be appointed to the office of the Chief Justice of India.
›A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court must be a citizen of India.
›A Supreme Court judge must have been a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years OR an advocate of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for ten years OR a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.
›The Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.
›Supreme Court judges take an oath before the President (or person appointed by him) to bear true faith to the Constitution, uphold sovereignty and integrity of India, perform duties without fear or favour, and uphold the Constitution and laws.
›The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of Supreme Court judges are determined by Parliament and cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, except during a financial emergency.
›The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a Supreme Court judge, but they hold office until they attain 65 years of age.
›A Judge can resign by writing to the president.
›A judge can be removed from office by the President on the recommendation of Parliament.
›The President can issue a removal order only after an address by Parliament has been presented in the same session, supported by a special majority in each House (majority of total membership and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting).
›The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure for removal: a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members is given to the Speaker/Chairman.
›If admitted, a three-member committee (Chief Justice/SC judge, High Court Chief Justice, distinguished jurist) investigates.
›If the committee finds guilt, both Houses must pass the motion by special majority, an address is presented to the President, and the President then removes the judge.
›No judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached to date.
›The first case of attempted impeachment was Justice V. Ramaswami (1991–1993), but the motion was defeated in Lok Sabha despite the enquiry committee finding him guilty. The Congress Party abstained from voting.
›The President can appoint an acting Chief Justice when the office is vacant, the CJI is temporarily absent, or unable to perform duties.
›The Chief Justice of India can appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court for a temporary period if there is a lack of quorum of permanent judges, after consulting the High Court Chief Justice and with the President's consent.
›An ad hoc judge must be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge and enjoys all jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court judge.
›The Chief Justice of India can requ
›323B subjects include elections to Parliament/state legislatures (very UPSC-relevant)
›Rent added to 323B subjects by 75th Amendment 1993
›The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 removed the provision for Vice-Chairman in the CAT.
›At present (2019), the sanctioned strength of the CAT Chairman is one, and Members is 65.
›CAT members are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams.
›CAT Chairman and Members are appointed by the President.
›Appointment of CAT Members is based on recommendations from a high-powered selection committee chaired by a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
›After concurrence from the Chief Justice of India, appointments are made with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
›The CAT is not bound by the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908.
›CAT applicants may appear either in person or through a lawyer.
›For SATs, Chairman and members are appointed by the President after consultation with the governor of the concerned state.
›Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT) can be set up for two or more states and exercises all jurisdiction and powers exercisable by administrative tribunals for such states.
›Chairman and members of a JAT are appointed by the President after consultation with the governors of the concerned states.
›Article 323A allows for only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states, with no hierarchy.
›Article 323B allows for a hierarchy of tribunals.
State Governments may also set up Family Courts in other areas if deemed necessary — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters such as matrimonial relief (nullity, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, validity of marriage/matrimonial status), property of spouses, legitimacy of any person, guardianship or custody of a minor, and maintenance of wife, children, and parents — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Family Courts are obliged to first attempt reconciliation or settlement between parties to a family dispute, during which proceedings are informal and rigid procedural rules do not apply — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The Act provides for the association of social welfare agencies, counselors, and medical/welfare experts during the conciliation stage — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Parties to a dispute before a Family Court are not entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner, though the court may seek assistance from a legal expert as amicus curiae — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›The rules of evidence and procedure are simplified to enable Family Courts to deal effectively with disputes — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›Only one right of appeal lies from a Family Court, which is to the High Court — M. Laxmikanth — Indian Polity (6th Edition, 2019), ch36-subordinate-courts.md
›An award of a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and is final and binding on all parties; no appeal lies against the award
›There is no court fee in Lok Adalat proceedings; if court fee is already paid, the amount will be refunded if the dispute is settled
›Proceedings before a Lok Adalat follow procedural flexibility without strict application of procedural laws like the Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act
›Parties can directly interact with the judge through their counsel in Lok Adalat
›The Legal Services Authorities Act was amended in 2002 to provide for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats to deal with cases pertaining to public utility services
›Permanent Lok Adalats have pecuniary jurisdiction up to rupees ten lakhs (which the Central Government may increase)
›Permanent Lok Adalats consist of a Chairman (who is or has been a district judge or additional district judge or higher judicial officer) and two other persons having adequate experience in public utility services
›Before a dispute is brought before any court, any party may apply to a Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement; after application, no party shall invoke jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute
›If parties fail to reach agreement in Permanent Lok Adalat, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute on merits