Chapter 4 Judiciary

Newspapers often report on the vast range of work undertaken by the courts in India. But what is the fundamental reason why we need these courts? In India, we adhere to the **rule of law**. This principle means that laws apply equally to **all persons**, regardless of their status, and that specific, established procedures must be followed when a law is violated. To ensure the enforcement of this rule of law, a **judicial system** is in place, comprising courts that citizens can approach when a law is broken or their rights are infringed upon.

As one of the three organs of government (alongside the legislature and the executive), the **judiciary plays a crucial role in the functioning of India's democracy**. The ability of the judiciary to perform this role effectively is fundamentally dependent on its **independence**. Understanding what an 'independent judiciary' means and how the court system is structured in India are key questions this chapter addresses.

What Is The Role Of The Judiciary?

The Supreme Court of India, the apex court, was established on January 26, 1950, when India became a Republic. Courts at all levels in India handle a wide variety of issues and disputes.

Broadly, the work of the judiciary can be divided into the following functions:

• **Dispute Resolution:** The judicial system provides a formal mechanism for resolving disagreements and conflicts. This includes disputes between:
  • Individual citizens.
  • Citizens and the government.
  • Two state governments.
  • The central government and one or more state governments.
• **Judicial Review:** The judiciary acts as the final interpreter of the Constitution. It possesses the power to review laws passed by the legislature (Parliament or State Legislatures). If a court, particularly the Supreme Court, finds that a law violates the basic structure or principles of the Constitution, it can declare that law null and void (unconstitutional). This power is known as **judicial review**.
• **Upholding the Law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights:** The judiciary is responsible for ensuring that laws are applied correctly and fairly. Crucially, it plays a vital role in protecting the **Fundamental Rights** guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or a High Court if they believe their Fundamental Rights have been violated by the State or other individuals.

This image shows the building of the Supreme Court of India, located in New Delhi. As the highest court in the country, it is at the apex of the Indian judicial system and plays critical roles in dispute resolution, judicial review, and upholding fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court of India, established on January 26, 1950, initially operated from the Parliament House (Chamber of Princes) before moving to its current building on Mathura Road, New Delhi, in 1958.

Answer:

What Is An Independent Judiciary?

The concept of an **independent judiciary** is fundamental to its effective functioning and is a key feature of India's Constitution, as discussed in Chapter 1 (Separation of Powers). It ensures that other branches of government – the legislature and the executive – **cannot interfere** with the work of the courts.

Imagine a scenario where a powerful politician could appoint or dismiss a judge. If you had a legal case against this politician regarding land encroachment, the judge might be biased in the politician's favour due to the politician's control over their position. This lack of independence would prevent the judge from making impartial decisions based solely on the law and evidence. Although wealthy and influential individuals may attempt to influence the judicial process, the independence guaranteed by the Constitution provides a safeguard against such undue influence.

The separation of powers ensures that the courts are not under the direct control of the government and do not act on its instructions. For this separation to be effective, the process of appointing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court involves minimal interference from the executive or legislature. Furthermore, once appointed, it is very difficult to remove a judge from office, typically requiring a complex process involving impeachment by Parliament. This security of tenure helps judges make decisions without fear or favour.

The **independence of the judiciary** is what allows the courts to perform their crucial roles: acting as a check on the powers of the legislature and executive, and safeguarding the Fundamental Rights of citizens. Because the judiciary is independent, any citizen can approach the courts without fear if they believe their rights have been violated.

Two key reasons why an independent judiciary is essential to democracy:

• It ensures that the government (executive and legislature) **operates within the bounds of the Constitution and the law**, preventing arbitrary use of power.
• It protects the **Fundamental Rights of citizens**, providing a mechanism for individuals to seek justice if their rights are violated.

What Is The Structure Of Courts In India?

India has an **integrated judicial system** structured in a hierarchical manner, with three different levels of courts. While there are numerous courts at the lower levels, there is only one court at the very top (apex level).

The courts that most people interact with directly are the **subordinate or district courts**. These are usually located at the district or tehsil level, or within towns, and they handle a wide range of cases, both civil and criminal.

Above the district courts, each state in India has a **High Court**, which is the highest court within that particular state. The High Courts were first established in the Presidency cities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1862. The High Court of Delhi was established in 1966. Currently, there are 25 High Courts across India. Some states share High Courts (like Punjab and Haryana sharing the Chandigarh High Court), while some High Courts have benches in other parts of their state to improve accessibility.

At the very apex of the Indian judicial system is the **Supreme Court**, located in New Delhi. It is the highest court in the country and is presided over by the Chief Justice of India. The decisions and judgments rendered by the Supreme Court are **binding on all other courts** throughout India.

This pyramid diagram illustrates the hierarchical structure of the Indian judicial system. The base represents the numerous lower courts, the middle tier represents the High Courts in each state, and the apex represents the single Supreme Court of India.

Answer:

These different levels of courts are indeed connected, forming an **integrated judicial system**. This integration is evident in the fact that judgments made by higher courts set precedents and are binding on the courts below them. Another manifestation of this integrated structure is the **appellate system**.

The **appellate system** allows a person to appeal to a higher court if they are dissatisfied with the judgment passed by a lower court. This means a case can potentially move up the judicial hierarchy.

The case of **State (Delhi Administration) vs Laxman Kumar and Others (1985)** illustrates the appellate system:

• In February 1980, Sudha Goel died from burns. Her family alleged dowry-related murder and filed a case.
• The **Trial Court** heard the case, examined witnesses (including neighbours who testified to hearing screams and seeing Sudha attribute the fire to her in-laws), and based on evidence, **convicted Laxman Kumar (husband), Shakuntala (mother-in-law), and Subash Chandra (brother-in-law)**, sentencing them to death.
• The convicted individuals **appealed** this verdict in the **High Court** (November 1983). The High Court reviewed the arguments and evidence and concluded that Sudha's death was accidental due to a kerosene stove fire. The High Court, therefore, **acquitted** all three accused.
• Women's groups, troubled by this acquittal (part of a larger movement against 'dowry deaths'), protested and filed a separate **appeal** against the High Court's decision directly in the **Supreme Court** (1985).
• The **Supreme Court** heard the arguments, reviewed the case, and reached a different decision. They found Laxman and Shakuntala **guilty** but acquitted Subash Chandra due to insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court sentenced Laxman and his mother to **prison for life**.

This case clearly shows how a judgment from a lower court (Trial Court) can be challenged through an appeal in a higher court (High Court), and how the High Court's decision can, in turn, be appealed in the highest court (Supreme Court), demonstrating the flow of cases through the integrated appellate structure.

These photos show a regional bench of the Gauhati High Court in Aizawl (Mizoram) and the District Courts Complex in Namchi (South Sikkim). These images represent the presence of the judicial system at the state and district levels, making justice accessible to people in various parts of the country, although access challenges remain.

What we understand about the appellate system from the Sudha Goel case is that it allows parties dissatisfied with a lower court's verdict to challenge it in a higher court. This provides multiple levels of review for a case, aiming to ensure that justice is ultimately served by the highest court.

The subordinate courts (Trial Courts, District Courts, etc.) are also commonly known by different names depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case they handle, such as Court of the District Judge, Additional Sessions Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, and Civil Judge.

What Are The Different Branches Of The Legal System?

The legal system in India deals with two main branches of law: **Criminal Law** and **Civil Law**.

The Sudha Goel case, involving alleged dowry death and murder, is an example of a case falling under **criminal law**. Criminal law deals with acts considered offenses against society as a whole.

In contrast to criminal law, the legal system also handles **civil law** cases. Civil law deals with disputes or harm to the rights of individuals or organisations, such as property disputes, contractual issues, or matters related to family law.

Key differences between Criminal Law and Civil Law:

Format 1 (Vertical)

Format 1 (Vertical)

Example scenarios demonstrating the branches of law:

• A group of girls being persistently harassed while walking to school: This involves acts considered offences against individuals and potentially society (like public nuisance, assault, or stalking) and falls under **Criminal Law**. The procedure would involve filing an FIR with the police, investigation, and the state filing a case in court.
• A tenant being forced to move out filing a case against the landlord: This is a dispute concerning rental agreements and rights related to property and falls under **Civil Law**. The tenant would file a petition in the appropriate court seeking relief, such as protection from eviction or specific performance of the rental agreement.

Answer:

Does Everyone Have Access To The Courts?

In principle, the Indian Constitution guarantees that **all citizens have the right to justice** and can access the courts. The judiciary plays a vital role in upholding and interpreting the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

However, in reality, **access to courts has historically been challenging for the majority of poor people** in India. Legal procedures can be lengthy, complex, and involve significant costs in terms of fees, paperwork, and time off from work. For a poor person relying on daily wages and potentially facing literacy barriers, the prospect of navigating the court system to seek justice often seems distant and impractical.

To address this issue and increase **access to justice**, particularly for the underprivileged, the Supreme Court devised a new mechanism in the early 1980s called the **Public Interest Litigation (PIL)**.

Key features of PIL:

• It allows **any individual or organisation** to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court.
• A PIL can be filed **on behalf of those whose rights are being violated** but who cannot access the courts themselves.
• The legal process for PIL was deliberately **simplified**. Even a simple letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or High Court could be accepted and treated as a PIL.

In its early years, PIL was effectively used to secure justice on a range of important issues, such as:

• Rescuing bonded labourers from exploitative and inhuman working conditions.
• Securing the release of prisoners in Bihar who had been held in jail even after completing their sentences.

A notable example of the impact of PIL is the **Mid-day Meal Scheme** in government and government-aided schools. In 2001, during a drought in Rajasthan and Orissa, millions faced severe food shortages while government godowns held abundant grain. In response to this "hunger amidst plenty," the **People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)** filed a PIL in the Supreme Court. The PIL argued that the fundamental **Right to Life (Article 21)** in the Constitution included the **Right to Food**. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the state had a duty to provide food for all. It directed the government to take specific measures, including providing employment, supplying cheaper food through ration shops, and implementing the mid-day meal scheme for children.

This photo essay visually narrates the story of the PIL for the Right to Food. It depicts the contrast between drought-induced food shortage and overflowing government godowns, the filing of the PIL by PUCL asserting the Right to Food under Article 21, the Supreme Court's ruling affirming this right and directing government action, and the resulting implementation of schemes like the Mid-day Meal, showcasing how PIL facilitated access to justice and fundamental rights for the poor.

The Supreme Court's judgment in the **Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)** case further expanded the interpretation of the Right to Life (Article 21) to include the **Right to Livelihood**. The court reasoned that "life" means more than just mere existence; it includes the means of living or livelihood. The judgment acknowledged that for pavement dwellers or slum inhabitants, losing their dwelling often meant losing their job as their home was near their workplace. Thus, eviction directly deprived them of their livelihood, and consequently, their life. This landmark judgment attempted to protect the livelihoods of slum dwellers.

While PIL has significantly improved access to justice for many, it is not without limitations. Some believe that certain recent court judgments on issues like evictions have contradicted earlier protective interpretations of rights like the right to livelihood, viewing slum dwellers more as encroachers. Another major issue affecting common people's access to justice is the **long delays in the court system**. Cases can take years, sometimes decades, to be resolved, leading to the often-used phrase "**justice delayed is justice denied**."

This photo shows family members seeking justice for the victims of the Hashimpura massacre. The text highlights the extremely long period (over 31 years) required for justice to be delivered in this case, illustrating the problem of delayed justice in the Indian legal system and its profound impact on those seeking redress.

Despite challenges like delays, the judiciary has played an undeniably crucial role in democratic India. It has acted as a vital check on the powers of the executive and legislature and has been instrumental in protecting and interpreting the Fundamental Rights of citizens. The framers of the Constitution correctly foresaw the necessity of an independent judiciary as a cornerstone of India's democracy.

Shortages of judges can significantly impact the delivery of justice. With a large number of vacancies, existing judges face increased workloads, leading to delays in hearing cases. This shortage can prolong the time taken for cases to be resolved, exacerbating the problem of 'justice delayed is justice denied' and potentially hindering timely access to justice for litigants.