Structure of Subordinate Courts

The judiciary in India is an integrated system. Below the Supreme Court and the High Courts lies the network of subordinate courts, primarily functioning at the district and lower levels. These courts deal with the vast majority of civil and criminal cases and form the foundation of the judicial system.

The organisation of subordinate courts is left to the states, leading to some variations in nomenclature and structure from one state to another. However, the basic pattern of civil and criminal courts is generally uniform.

Civil Courts (Munsiff, Sub-Judge, District Judge)

On the civil side, the hierarchy of courts generally is:

1. District Judge: This is the highest civil court in a district. The District Judge has original and appellate jurisdiction in civil matters. Appeals against the decisions of the District Judge lie to the High Court.

2. Sub-Judge (or Civil Judge, Senior Division): Below the District Judge, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction (power to hear cases up to a certain value) higher than that of the Munsiff Court.

3. Munsiff Court (or Civil Judge, Junior Division): This is the lowest civil court in a district, having limited pecuniary jurisdiction. Appeals from this court lie to the Sub-Judge or District Judge.

The District Judge presides over the District Court. When dealing with civil matters, the judge is referred to as the District Judge. When dealing with criminal matters, the same judge is referred to as the Sessions Judge.

Criminal Courts (Magistrates, Sessions Courts)

On the criminal side, the hierarchy of courts generally is:

1. Sessions Judge: This is the highest criminal court in a district. The Sessions Judge hears criminal cases committed to his court by the Magistrates. A Sessions Judge can award any sentence, including life imprisonment and the death penalty. However, a sentence of death awarded by a Sessions Judge is subject to confirmation by the High Court.

2. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) / Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM): In a district, the CJM is the head of the criminal courts at the magisterial level. He can award imprisonment up to seven years and fines. In metropolitan areas, the equivalent is the CMM.

3. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) / Metropolitan Magistrate (MM): These magistrates have limited powers. They can award imprisonment up to three years and fines up to ₹10,000. In metropolitan areas, the equivalent is the MM.

4. Judicial Magistrate Second Class: These have even more limited powers, generally imprisonment up to one year and fines up to ₹5,000.

Some states might also have executive magistrates (District Magistrates, Sub-divisional Magistrates) who are part of the executive and exercise certain limited judicial or quasi-judicial functions, but the primary criminal judiciary consists of Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Judges.

Appointment, Transfer, and Control of District Judges

Articles 233 to 235 in Part VI, Chapter VI of the Constitution deal with the appointment, control, and administration of the subordinate judiciary, particularly focusing on District Judges.

Appointment of District Judges:

As mentioned under the Judiciary topic, Article 233(1) states: "Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State."

This means the Governor formally appoints District Judges, but this is done in mandatory consultation with the concerned High Court. The High Court's recommendation plays a significant role in these appointments.

Article 233(2) lays down the eligibility criteria for advocates to be appointed as District Judges: they must have practiced for at least seven years and be recommended by the High Court.

Transfer and Control of District Judges:

While appointment, posting, and promotion are done by the Governor in consultation with the High Court, the control over District Courts and courts subordinate thereto is vested in the High Court (Article 235).

Article 235 states: "The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting, promotion and grant of leave to, persons presiding over the inferior courts, shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law."

This gives the High Court disciplinary and administrative control over the subordinate judiciary. It includes control over transfers (within the same cadre), disciplinary proceedings, and other administrative matters concerning judicial officers below the rank of District Judge.

Role of High Courts

The High Court plays a pivotal role in the administration of the subordinate judiciary:

• It is consulted by the Governor in the appointment of District Judges.

• It controls and supervises the functioning of all subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction (Article 227).

• It exercises disciplinary control over judicial officers (Article 235).

• It is consulted in the appointment of judicial officers other than District Judges (Article 234).

• It hears appeals from subordinate courts.

The vesting of control in the High Court is a constitutional mechanism to ensure the independence of the subordinate judiciary from the executive and legislature at the state level, thereby upholding judicial autonomy at all levels of the integrated judicial system.

Other Civil and Criminal Courts

Apart from the main hierarchy headed by the District and Sessions Judge, there are various other courts and specialized judicial or quasi-judicial bodies that function at the subordinate level.

Specialized Courts:

• Family Courts: Established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to deal with matters relating to family disputes (marriage, divorce, maintenance, child custody) in a more informal and conciliatory manner.

• Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals: Deal with disputes between employers and employees under labour laws.

• Consumer Forums/Commissions: Established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now replaced by Consumer Protection Act, 2019) at district, state, and national levels to adjudicate consumer complaints.

• Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT): To decide claims for compensation in motor accident cases.

• Commercial Courts: Established in certain areas to deal with commercial disputes of specified value, providing for faster resolution.

• National Investigation Agency (NIA) Courts: Special courts designated to try offences investigated by the NIA.

These specialised courts are created by specific statutes to handle particular categories of cases, aiming for efficient and expert adjudication.

Courts in Metropolitan Areas:

In large urban areas notified as 'metropolitan areas' (population exceeding one million), the criminal courts are known as Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and the sessions court is presided over by the Sessions Judge, similar to other districts. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (ACMMs) head the Metropolitan Magistrate courts.

Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees:

Established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, these bodies deal with children in conflict with the law (JJBs, exercising powers of a Judicial Magistrate) and children in need of care and protection (CWCs, exercising powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure). They operate at the district level.

The specific structure and powers of these additional courts and bodies are determined by the relevant central or state legislation establishing them.

Administrative Tribunals (Article 323A)

Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established by law to adjudicate disputes relating to specific matters. They were introduced in the Constitution to reduce the burden on regular courts and provide for speedier justice in specific areas.

Constitutional Basis:

Part XIV-A was added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This part deals with Tribunals.

Article 323A empowers Parliament to constitute Administrative Tribunals for the adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services of the Union, the States, local bodies, public corporations, and other public authorities.

Establishment and Functions

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Established by the Parliament under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate disputes regarding the service conditions of Central Government employees.

• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): Parliament can also establish SATs on the request of the concerned state legislature, to deal with the service matters of state government employees.

Characteristics:

• Administrative Tribunals are special courts that exercise jurisdiction primarily over service matters. They typically have a mix of judicial and administrative members.

• Originally, tribunals were intended to exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts (under Article 226 and 227) over the matters falling within their purview. However, the Supreme Court in the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) held that judicial review by High Courts (under Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32/136) is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded. Thus, appeals against the decisions of administrative tribunals lie to the concerned High Court.

• They are bound by the principles of natural justice but are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence in the same way as civil courts.

Administrative tribunals aim to provide a quick and less expensive remedy for government employees in service-related disputes.

Tribunals for Other Matters (Article 323B)

Article 323B, also added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, empowers Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to various other matters.

Scope:

Article 323B lists certain specific subjects for which tribunals can be created. These include:

• Taxation

• Foreign exchange, import, and export

• Industrial and labour disputes

• Land reforms

• Ceiling on urban property

• Elections to Parliament and state legislatures

• Production, procurement, supply and distribution of food-stuffs and other essential goods

• Rent and tenancy rights

The law establishing these tribunals can specify their jurisdiction, powers, and procedure, including the exclusion of the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, except for the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Examples: Income Tax Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal

Numerous tribunals have been established under Article 323B and other legislative powers of Parliament and state legislatures:

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): Deals with appeals under the Income Tax Act.

• Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Deals with appeals under customs, excise, and service tax laws.

• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Deal with matters under the Companies Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, etc.

• Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT, now replaced by NCLAT): Dealt with appeals from the Competition Commission of India.

• Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Deals with appeals against orders of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.

• Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to hear appeals and applications with respect to commission, appointments and all service conditions in the armed forces.

Tribunals are intended to provide specialised, efficient, and faster resolution of disputes in specific areas, reducing the workload on the regular courts.

Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions

A key aspect regarding tribunals is the scope of judicial review of their decisions by the regular courts.

Role of High Courts and Supreme Court

As established in the L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) case, the power of judicial review of High Courts under Article 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32/136 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded.

Therefore, decisions of all tribunals in India, including administrative tribunals (established under Article 323A) and tribunals for other matters (established under Article 323B or by ordinary legislation), are subject to judicial review by the High Courts under Article 226/227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition).

This ensures that tribunals function within the bounds of the law and the Constitution and that their decisions are not arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights. The High Court is generally the first court of appeal/review from the decision of a tribunal, before a possible appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Special Courts for Speedy Trial

To ensure speedy trial of certain categories of cases, particularly those involving politicians, public servants, or specific types of offences, Parliament has sometimes enacted laws for the establishment of Special Courts.

Purpose:

The primary objective of establishing Special Courts is to ensure expeditious trial and prevent delays in cases that are often complex, involve influential individuals, or are of significant public interest.

Legal Basis:

Special Courts are established by Acts of Parliament. For example, the Special Courts Act, 1979, was enacted to provide for the speedy trial of offences committed by persons holding high public offices during the period of the Emergency.

Various other statutes also provide for the designation or establishment of special courts to try offences under those specific laws (e.g., NIA Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act). In many cases, existing Sessions Courts are designated as Special Courts for this purpose.

Characteristics:

• They typically have powers of a Court of Session.

• They follow special procedures, which may include stricter timelines for trial and limits on adjournments, to ensure speedy disposal.

The constitutionality of Special Courts has been upheld by the Supreme Court, provided they adhere to the principles of fair trial and do not violate Article 14 (equality) by arbitrarily singling out individuals or cases without a valid classification based on the nature of the offence or the office held.

Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas

India has developed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to provide accessible and speedy justice, particularly at the grassroots level. Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas are examples of such initiatives.

Lok Adalats (People's Courts):

• Concept: Lok Adalats are forums where disputes pending before a court or at the pre-litigation stage are settled amicably through conciliation and compromise. They are based on Gandhian principles and are a form of ADR.

• Legal Framework: Lok Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Under this Act, Permanent Lok Adalats have also been established for public utility services.

• Composition: A Lok Adalat is presided over by a judicial officer, and typically includes lawyers, social workers, or other persons with legal knowledge and experience.

• Jurisdiction: They can deal with any case pending before any court or any matter which is at the pre-litigation stage (except criminal cases which are non-compoundable under any law).

• Award: The award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all the parties to the dispute. No appeal lies against an award of a Lok Adalat to any court.

Lok Adalats have been successful in reducing the backlog of cases and providing speedy justice, especially for the weaker sections.

Gram Nyayalayas (Village Courts):

• Concept: Gram Nyayalayas are courts established at the intermediate panchayat level (or a group of contiguous panchayats) to provide access to justice to citizens at the grassroots, dealing with both civil and criminal cases.

• Legal Framework: Established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.

• Composition: Headed by a Nyayadhikari (Judicial Magistrate First Class) appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court.

• Jurisdiction: They have jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases specified in the Schedules to the Act, which can be amended by the State Governments in consultation with the High Court.

• Procedure: They follow a summary procedure and are guided by the principles of natural justice, aiming for speedy disposal. They can try certain criminal cases and hear civil suits and claims.

Gram Nyayalayas aim to make justice more accessible and affordable in rural areas, providing an alternative forum to the traditional courts.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Apart from regular courts and tribunals, there are various bodies that exercise quasi-judicial functions. These are administrative bodies that have been conferred with some judicial powers to hold inquiries, make decisions, and resolve disputes in specific areas.

Meaning of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

'Quasi-judicial' means having a partly judicial character. These bodies are not courts in the strict sense, but they have the authority to affect the rights of parties through their decisions after following a process that resembles judicial procedure (e.g., hearing both sides, giving reasons for the decision).

Characteristics:

• They are usually administrative agencies or officials.

• They are established by statutes.

• They have the power to determine questions of fact and apply legal rules, but they are generally not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure as courts are.

• Their decisions are binding on the parties concerned.

• Their decisions are subject to judicial review by the High Courts (under Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 136).

Examples:

• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs): Can inquire into complaints of human rights violations.

• National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for SCs, National Commission for STs: Can investigate and inquire into matters related to their mandates and have powers of a civil court.

• Election Commission of India (ECI): Can decide disputes relating to recognition of political parties and allotment of election symbols.

• Consumer Forums/Commissions: Also fall under this category.

• Tax Authorities: Officers making tax assessments often exercise quasi-judicial functions.

• Regulatory Authorities: Bodies like TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), IRDAI (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India), etc., often have powers to resolve disputes or impose penalties.

Quasi-judicial bodies play a significant role in the administration of justice by providing specialised and often faster mechanisms for resolving specific types of disputes, reducing the burden on the traditional court system, but their decisions remain subject to judicial scrutiny.