UPSC NCERT Notes - Indian Polity

The Judiciary holds a distinctive position in the Constitution, functioning as an independent and impartial authority responsible for adjudicating disputes between the Centre and the State/States or among the states.

In contrast to the American Constitution, the Constitution of India establishes an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at its apex and the High Courts positioned below. Within this structure, a hierarchy of subordinate courts, including district courts and other lower courts, operates under each High Court.

Table of Contents

Integrated Structure of Indian Judiciary:

Supreme Court
High Courts
Subordinate Courts

In Districts

Subordinate Provisional Judges
Small Cause Court (Civil) Court
Criminal Session Courts
Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court

In Metropolitan Areas

Presidency Small Cause Court
City Civil and Session Courts
Munsiff Courts
Nyaya Panchayats
Subordinate Magistrates Court
Panchayat Adalats
Judicial Magistrates
Executive Magistrates

The Supreme Court:

Inaugurated on January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court of India succeeded the Federal Court of India, which was established under the Government of India Act of 1935.
Despite its historical antecedents, the Supreme Court wields greater power, surpassing even the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal.
Constitutional provisions about the Supreme Court are outlined in Part V, spanning Articles 124 to 147. These articles address the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures, and other aspects of the Supreme Court.
Article 124 (1) of the Indian Constitution mandates the existence of a Supreme Court comprising a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a maximum of seven additional judges unless Parliament prescribes a larger number by law.
Functioning as the apex court, the Supreme Court serves as the head of the entire judicial system.

Historical Background of the Supreme Court:

The Regulating Act of 1773 promulgated the establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta as a Court of Record with comprehensive authority.
The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 introduced High Courts for various provinces, leading to the abolition of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay.
Until the creation of the Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act, of 1935, these High Courts remained the highest courts for all cases.
Post-Independence in 1947, the Constitution of India came into effect on January 26, 1950, marking the establishment of the Supreme Court of India, which held its inaugural session on January 28, 1950.

Articles Related to the Supreme Court

Article	Description
Article 124	Establishment and Constitution of the Supreme Court
Article 125	Salaries, etc. of judges
Article 126	Appointment of acting Chief Justice
Article 127	Appointment of ad-hoc judges
Article 128	Attendance of retired judges at sittings of the Supreme Court
Article 129	Supreme Court to be a court of record
Article 130	The seat of Supreme Court
Article 131	Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 132	Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
Article 133	Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts regarding civil matters
Article 134	Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding criminal matters
Article 134A	Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
Article 135	Jurisdiction and powers of the federal court under existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court
Article 136	Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
Article 137	Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court
Article 138	Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 139	Conferment on the Supreme Court of powers to issue certain writs
Article 139(A)	Transfer of certain cases
Article 140	Ancillary powers of the Supreme Court
Article 141	Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all courts
Article 142	Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court
Article 143	Power of the President to consult the Supreme Court
Article 144	Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court
Article 145	Rules of court, etc.
Article 146	Officers and servants and the expenses of the Supreme Court
Article 147	Interpretation

Composition of the Supreme Court

As of February 2023, the Supreme Court comprises 34 Judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Established in 1950 with 8 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, its composition can be regulated by Parliament through legislation.

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President, as per Article 124(2).
The Chief Justice is appointed by the President after consulting Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary.
Other judges are appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as deemed necessary. Consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory for the appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice.

Collegium System

Originating during the ‘three judges case’ and in practice since 1998, the Collegium System handles appointments and transfers of judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Headed by the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court collegium includes four other senior judges.
Higher judiciary judges are appointed exclusively through the collegium system.
The collegium recommends names to the Central Government, and the government proposes names to the collegium.
Despite the National Judicial Commission Act (NJAC) established by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 to replace the collegium system, the Supreme Court upheld the collegium system, declaring the NJAC unconstitutional.

Three Judges Cases on Consultation in the Collegium System

First Judges Case (1982): The court determined that consultation does not necessitate concurrence; it simply implies an exchange of views.
Second Judges Case (1993): The court reversed its earlier stance, redefining consultation to mean concurrence. Consequently, it ruled that the Chief Justice of India’s advice is binding on the President in the appointment of Supreme Court Judges. This advice, however, must be given after the Chief Justice of India consults with two of his most senior judges.
Third Judges Case (1998): The consultation process should involve a plurality of judges. The Chief Justice of India should consult a collegium of the four seniormost judges before recommending names to the President. Even if two judges express dissenting opinions, the recommendation should not be forwarded to the President.

Qualifications and Oath/Affirmations

To qualify as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must:
Be a citizen of India.
Have served as a Judge of a High Court for at least five years or two such courts consecutively.
Have been an Advocate of a High Court for at least ten years or two or more such courts consecutively.
Be regarded as a distinguished jurist by the President.
The Constitution does not specify a minimum age limit for a judge to assume office.
Before taking office, every person appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court must make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation before the President, as outlined in the third Schedule of the Constitution.

Term of Office

A Judge of the Supreme Court holds office until reaching the age of 65.
A Judge of the Supreme Court may resign to the President before reaching the age of 65.

After retirement, a Judge of the Supreme Court is prohibited from practicing law in any court within the territory of India and is barred from pleading before any government authority.

Salaries and Allowances of Supreme Court Judges

The Parliament has the authority to regulate the salaries, allowances, privileges, leave, and pension of judges during their term of office.
The exception is that during a financial emergency (Article 360), the salaries and other allowances of judges can be reduced.
Salaries and other allowances are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The Chief Justice of India now receives a monthly salary of ₹2.8 lakh, increased from ₹1 lakh, while Supreme Court Judges draw a monthly salary of ₹2.50 lakh.

Removal of a Supreme Court Judge

According to Article 124(4), a Judge of the Supreme Court can only be removed by an order of the President.
The removal requires an address made by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership and not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
The removal must be based on proven misbehavior or incapacity and presented to the President in the same session.

Process of Impeachment

The Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 governs the procedure for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court through impeachment.
A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha.
An inquiry committee is constituted by the Presiding officer of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, consisting of the Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and a distinguished Jurist.
If the inquiry committee finds the judge guilty, it may recommend removal.
Both Houses must pass a resolution by a special majority in the same session.
The judge is removed by the President’s order. However, no case of removal of a Supreme Court Judge has occurred so far.

Officials of the Supreme Court

The other officials of the Supreme Court are as follows:

Chief Justice of India:

The highest judicial officer, responsible for administrative tasks and workload allocation among Supreme Court Judges.
Acting Chief Justice of India: Appointed by the President when the Chief Justice of India’s office is vacant, the Chief Justice is unable to perform duties, or temporarily absent.

Adhoc Judges

When a session of the Supreme Court lacks a quorum of permanent judges to hold or continue, Article 127 empowers the Chief Justice of India to appoint a Judge of a High Court as an Adhoc Judge for a temporary period.
This appointment requires prior consent from the President and consultation with the relevant Chief Justice of the High Court.
The appointed judge must be qualified for a Supreme Court Judgeship and is duty-bound to attend Supreme Court sittings, enjoying all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court Judge during attendance.

Retired Judges

Article 128 allows the Chief Justice of India to request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (qualified for Supreme Court appointment) to act as a Judge of the Supreme Court temporarily.
While sitting and acting, the retired judge is entitled to allowances determined by the President and possesses all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a Supreme Court Judge.
However, the retired judge is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Seat and Benches of the Supreme Court

According to Article 130, the Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or at other places as decided by the Chief Justice of India with the President’s approval.
Various benches of the Supreme Court handle case disposals, with single judges hearing bail applications and appeals.
Division benches, typically consisting of two judges, decide most matters, and in case of disagreement, the senior judge’s view prevails.
Priority matters are placed before three-judge benches. Cases involving Constitutional interpretation and presidential references are heard by a five-judge Constitutional Bench, with the largest bench being a 13-judge panel delivering the Kesavananda Bharati Case verdict in 1973.

Amicus Curiae

“Amicus curiae” refers to a friend of the court, someone not a party to a case who assists the court by offering information, expertise, or insight relevant to the case’s issues.
The court’s discretion determines whether to consider an amicus brief. In civil matters, the court can appoint an advocate as amicus curiae if deemed necessary for an unrepresented party.
Amicus curiae may also be appointed in matters of general public importance or those involving the public’s interest at large.

Judicial Independence

The Constitution safeguards the independence of Supreme Court Judges in several ways.
Judges are typically appointed based on seniority rather than political preference. Removal from office requires an order from the President, supported by a majority in each House of Parliament, with at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
This removal address must be presented to the President in the same session for proven misbehavior or incapacity. The salaries and allowances of a Supreme Court Judge cannot be reduced after the appointment.
A former Supreme Court Judge is barred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India.
The appointment of Supreme Court Judges is made by the President in consultation with members of the judiciary.
The Constitution bars any discussion in Parliament or a State Legislature regarding the conduct of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the discharge of their duties.

The Supreme Court holds the authority to penalize any person for contempt. Thus, its actions and decisions cannot be criticized and opposed by anybody.
The Parliament is not authorized to curtail the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court.
All administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including salaries and allowances, are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to voting by Parliament.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is fourfold, as follows:

Original Jurisdiction

According to Article 131, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute:
Between the Government of India and one or more states;
Between the Government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more other states on the other;
Between two or more states, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
Certain provisions in the Constitution exclude from the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court disputes specified in the provision to Article 363(1).
Complaints about interference with inter-state water supplies, referred to the statutory tribunal mentioned in Article 262 (since the Parliament has enacted the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956).
Matters referred to the Finance Commission Article 280.
Adjustment of certain expenses between the Union and the State Article 290.

Writ Jurisdiction

Article 32 imposes a duty on the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights. Under this Article, every individual has the right to move the Supreme Court provided there has been an infringement of their Fundamental Rights.
The Writ Jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but in the strict sense, Original Jurisdiction relates to the federal character of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is empowered to issue writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce Fundamental Rights.

Appellate Jurisdiction

The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Articles 132(1), 133(1), or 134 of the Constitution, in respect of any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Constitutional Appeals

In Constitutional matters, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
If the High Court refuses to give the certificate, the Supreme Court may grant special leave for appeal if it is satisfied that the case does involve such a question.

Civil Appeals

In civil cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if a High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law and further that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Jurisdiction of the court in civil cases can be enlarged if Parliament passes a law to that effect.

Criminal Appeals

In criminal cases, an appeal to the Supreme Court is permissible if the High Court:
Has, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal of an accused and sentenced him to death or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any subordinate court and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, or
Certifies that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by Special Leave

Under Article 136, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, order, or sentence in any case or matter passed by any court or tribunal, except a court martial.
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, International Commercial Arbitration can also be initiated in the Supreme Court.
Parliament is authorized to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.

Advisory Jurisdiction

According to Article 143, one notable aspect of the Supreme Court is its consultative role.
The President can refer to the court either as a question of law or a question of fact, provided that it is of public importance. However, the court doesn’t need to give its advice.
The President is empowered to refer to the Supreme Court for its opinion disputes arising out of any treaty, agreement, etc., entered into or executed before the commencement of the Constitution. The opinion of the Supreme Court is only advisory and not binding on the President.

Transfer Petitions

The Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases from one High Court to another and even from one District Court of a particular state to another District Court of another state.
In such transfer cases, the Supreme Court can transfer only those cases that genuinely lack territorial jurisdiction under the appropriate court, otherwise supposed to be filed under the transferred jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court often considers the actual grounds or reasons for such transfers.

Revisory Jurisdiction

Under Article 137, the Supreme Court is empowered to review any judgment or order made by it to remove any mistake or error that might have crept into the judgment or order.

Case of Ninth Schedule

In a unanimous verdict, a 9 Judge Constitutional Bench headed by CJI YK Sabharwal held that legislation did not receive protection under the Ninth Schedule if they were violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24th, 1973, shall be open to challenge in court if they violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.

Other Jurisdiction

Election petitions concerning the elections of the President and Vice-President are directly filed with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court also has special powers to inquire into the misconduct of the Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission.

A Court of Record

Article 129 specifies that the Supreme Court of India functions as a Court of Record, endowing it with two distinct powers.
In its capacity as a Court of Record, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to record judgments, proceedings, and acts, establishing them as enduring legal precedents and references.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is empowered to address contempt of court, with sanctions ranging from simple imprisonment for a duration of up to six months to fines up to 2000, or a combination of both.

Supreme Court as the Guardian of the Constitution

Revered as the Guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that the legislative and executive branches operate by constitutional provisions, preventing any derogation.
It also safeguards against amendments to the Constitution that would violate its fundamental structure.

Contemplating Contempt of Court, it manifests in two forms:

Civil contempt involves deliberate disobedience to court judgments, orders, writs, or breaches of court undertakings; and Criminal contempt encompasses acts such as the publication of content that scandalizes or diminishes the authority of the court.
Prejudices or disrupts the natural course of a judicial proceeding or interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.

Curative Petition

A curative petition stands as the ultimate recourse for individuals seeking justice through the judicial system. This petition implores the court to reevaluate its own decision, even after the dismissal of a review petition.
In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v/s Ashok Hurra (2002), the Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of a curative petition.
The Supreme Court affirmed its authority to revisit judgments using its inherent powers, aiming to prevent the misuse of its processes and rectify significant miscarriages of justice.

Distinctions between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of America (USA)

Distinctions	Supreme Court of India	Supreme Court of America (USA)
Original Jurisdiction	Confined to federal cases.	Covers federal cases and extends to naval forces, maritime activities, etc.
Advisory Jurisdiction	No advisory jurisdiction.	Possesses advisory jurisdiction.
Scope of Judicial Review	Limited.	Very wide.
Basis for Defending Rights	Defends citizens’ rights as per the procedure established by law.	Defends citizens’ rights as per the ‘due process of law.’
Power of Judicial Review	Has the power of Judicial Review.	Possesses a broad scope of Judicial Review.
Judicial System	No such power due to a double or separated Judicial System.	N/A
Superintendence and Control	Exercises superintendence and control over State High Courts due to an integrated Judicial System.	N/A

Important Supreme Court Cases

Cases	Description
AK Gopalan Case, 1950	Corresponds to charges of violation of Fundamental Right to Freedom under the Preventive Detention Act. The court examined the Constitutional validity of the Act.
Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951	Challenged reservations for backward classes in educational institutions in Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court overruled caste-based reservation as unconstitutional, citing the right against discrimination in Article 15.
Shankari Prasad Case, 1952	The First Constitution Amendment Act, providing for reservations, was challenged for violating Fundamental Rights. The court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution.
Barbara Case, 1960	Involved the cession of Indian Territory to an alien state. The court, in an advisory opinion, held that such a process cannot occur unless a constitutional amendment is made.
Golaknath Case, 1967	Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Shankari Prasad and Satan Singh case, stating that Constitutional amendments cannot infringe Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973	Propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended while others can be changed without sweeping alterations.
Minerva Mills Case, 1980	Held that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are complementary. Laws implementing Directive Principles, not contravening Fundamental Rights entirely, are valid.
Indira Sawhney Case, 1993	Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment with a cap of 50%. Introduced the Creamy Layer concept to identify well-off groups within backward classes.
Bommai Case, 1995	Declared federalism as part of the basic structure. Stated that State Governments cannot be arbitrarily dismissed, and any confidence test must be conducted on the floor of the Assembly.
Transgender as ‘Third Gender’	In 2014, the Supreme Court granted the Third Gender status to hijras or transgenders.
Triple Talaq Case, 2017	Declared the practice of Triple Talaq unconstitutional, directing the Union of India to consider appropriate legislation. Also, affirmed that this form of Talaq violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Passive Euthanasia	Supreme Court gave legal sanction to passive euthanasia, allowing patients to make an informed decision on withdrawing medical support if they slip into an irreversible coma. Recognized in the Aruna Shanbaug Case in 2011.
Shayara Bano Case, 2017	Declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional, affirming that it is derogatory and discriminatory towards women.
Internet and Mobile Association	In 2020, the Supreme Court declared the Circular issued by the RBI regarding the ban on the trading of Crypto Currencies as unfair and unviable. The judgment did not declare virtual currencies as legal or illegal but struck down the circular issued by the RBI

Various Legal Doctrines

The judiciary employs several doctrines while delivering judgments, including:

Double Jeopardy Doctrine: States that no person shall be punished for the same offense more than once.
Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation: Requires the Constitution’s provisions to be interpreted liberally, avoiding narrow interpretations.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance: Allows the court to settle jurisdiction conflicts between theUnion and States by ascertaining the substance of the matter related to legislative competence.
Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation: Considers the evolving socio-economic situation in the country while interpreting the Constitution.
Doctrine of Severability: Mandates the court to determine the constitutionality of either a part or the entirety of a statute. If only a portion is unconstitutional, the remaining law can still be applicable.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: Specifies that court interpretations and declared laws may not have retroactive operation.
Doctrine of Eclipse: Asserts that a pre-constitutional law violating Fundamental Rights doesn’t become entirely defunct but only goes into eclipse. It can be revived when the offending provisions are removed.
Doctrine of Implied Power: Determines the rights and duties of a legislative body or organization based on its functions, purposes, and practices specified in its Constitution or charter.
Doctrine of Colourable Legislation: Holds that if a legislature lacks the power to legislate on a subject but frames legislation to appear otherwise, it is considered colorable legislation and deemed invalid.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism initiated in a court to safeguard public interests, encompassing issues like pollution prevention, counter-terrorism, traffic safety, and construction site hazards. It serves as a means to address matters where the welfare of the general public is at risk.
This form of litigation allows non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or socially conscious individuals to champion public causes by filing PILs, seeking legal remedies for activities that are detrimental to the public interest.
Notably, there are no specific laws or statutes governing PIL; its establishment in India took shape through judicial decisions in response to human rights violations during the 1970s and 1980s. The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha Case marked the emergence of PIL, with Justice Krishna Iyer permitting petitions even without the litigant having locus standi. Justice Bhagwati played a pivotal role in advancing the PIL movement.
The first reported PIL case was Hussainara Khatoon v/s State of Bihar (1979), focusing on the deplorable conditions in prisons and for undertrial prisoners.
Any citizen can initiate a public interest case by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, Article 226 in the High Court, or Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Magistrate.
It’s essential to note that PILs can only be filed against State/Central Governments or Municipal Authorities, not private parties.
The Supreme Court has established key principles for PIL, asserting that the court, under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, can entertain petitions filed by any interested person working for the welfare of the people.
The court is proactive in intervening when a substantial number of individuals face injustice to uphold Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, along with International Covenants on Human Rights.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are initiated in the following cases:
Violation of the basic human rights of the poor (primarily focusing on the protection of Fundamental Rights, particularly in Article 21).
Scrutiny of government actions, policies, and their implementation.
Addressing issues related to labor exploitation.
Advocating for women’s rights.
Handling caste and religious concerns.
Examining governance matters and the functioning of public bodies at local, state, and union levels.
Tackling environmental issues.
Addressing concerns related to culture and heritage.
Dealing with other matters of public importance.

Locus Standi

Locus standi, traditionally requiring a person whose rights are infringed to seek a remedy in court, was a longstanding rule in the Indian judiciary.
This changed with the introduction of the concept of Public Interest Litigation.

Female Judges in the Supreme Court of India

Names	Tenure	Remarks	Fact
Fathima Beevi	6th October 1989 –	First woman judge of the Supreme Court of India	Appointment: 6th October 1989, Retirement: 29th April 1992
	29th April 1992
Sujata Manohar	8th November 1994 –	Longest-serving female judge of the Supreme Court of India	Appointment: 8th November 1994, Retirement: 27th August 1999
	27th August 1999
Ruma Pal	28th January 2000 –		Appointment: 28th January 2000, Retirement: 2nd June 2006
	2nd June 2006
Gyan Sudha Misra	30th April 2010 –		Appointment: 30th April 2010, Retirement: 27th April 2014
	27th April 2014
Ranjana Desai	13th September 2011 –		Appointment: 13th September 2011, Retirement: 29th October 2014
	29th October 2014
R. Banumathi	13th August 2014 –		Appointment: 13th August 2014, Retirement: 19th July 2020
	19th July 2020
Indu Malhotra	27th April 2018 –	The first woman judge elevated directly from the Bar Council of India	Appointment: 27th April 2018, Retirement: 13th March 2021
	13th March 2021
Indira Banerjee	7th August 2018 –		Appointment: 7th August 2018, Retirement: 23rd September 2022
	23rd September 2022
Hima Kohli	31st August 2021 –		Appointment: 31st August 2021, Retirement: 1st September 2024
	1st September 2024
B. V. Nagarathna	31st August 2021 –	To be the first female Chief Justice of India in September 2027	Appointment: 31st August 2021, Retirement: 29th October 2027
	29th October 2027
Bela Trivedi	31st August 2021 –		Appointment: 31st August 2021, Retirement: 9th June 2025
	9th June 2025

Chief Justice of India and their Tenure

Chief Justice	Tenure	Chief Justice	Tenure
H J Kania	26th January 1950 –	Amal Kumar Sarkar	16th March 1966 – 29th June 1966
Amal Kumar Sarkar	16th March 1966 – 29th	Koka Subba Rao	30th June 1966 – 11th April 1967
June 1966		Kailas Nath Wanchoo	12th April 1967 – 25th February 1968
Koka Subba Rao	30th June 1966 – 11th	Mohammad Hidayatullah	25th February 1968 – 16th December 1970
June 1967		Sudhi Ranjan Das	17th December 1970 – 15th March 1971
Kailas Nath Wanchoo	12th April 1967 –	Jayantilal Chhotalal Shah	16th March 1971 – 21st January 1971
25th February 1968		Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha	22nd January 1971 – 25th April 1973
Mohammad Hidayatullah	25th February 1968 –	AN Ray	26th April 1973 – 27th January 1977
16th December 1970

Chief Justice	Tenure
Mirza Hameedullah Beg	29th January 1977 –
Y V Chandrachud	22nd February 1978 –
PN Bhagwati	12th July 1985 – 20th December 1986
Raghunandan Swarup Pathak	21st December 1986 –
Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah	18th June 1989
Venkataraman	19th June 1989 – 17th December 1989
Sabyasachi Mukharji	18th December 1989 – 25th September 1990
Ranganath Misra	26th September 1990 – 24th November 1991
Kamal Narain Singham	25th November 1991 –
Madhukar Hiralal Kania	13th December 1991 – 17th November 1992
Lalit Mohan Sharma	18th November 1992 – 11th February 1993
MN Venkatachaliah	12th February 1993 – 24th October 1994
Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi	25th October 1994 – 24th March 1997
JS Verma	25th March 1997 – 17th January 1998
Madan Mohan Punchhi	18th January 1998 – 9th October 1998
Adarsh Sein Anand	10th October 1998 – 31st October 2001
Sam Piroj Bharucha	1st November 2001 – 5th May 2002
Bhupinder Nath Kirpal	6th May 2002 – 7th November 2002
Gopal Ballav Pattanaik	8th November 2002 – 18th December 2002
V N Khare	19th December 2002 – 1st May 2004
S Rajendra Babu	2nd May 2004 – 31st May 2004
Ramesh Chandra Lahoti	1st June 2004 – 31st October 2005
Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal	1st November 2005 – 13th January 2007
KG Balakrishnan	14th January 2007 – 12th May 2010
SH Kapadia	12th May 2010 – 28th September 2012
Altamas Kabir	29th September 2012 – 18th July 2013
P Sathasivam	19th July 2013 – 26th April 2014
Rajendra Mal Lodha	27th April 2014 – 27th September 2014
HL Dattu	28th September 2014 – 2nd December 2015
TS Thakur	3rd December 2015 – 3rd January 2017
Jagdish Singh Khehar	4th January 2017 – 27th August 2017
Dipak Misra	28th August 2017 – 2nd October 2018
Ranjan Gogoi	3rd October 2018 – 17th November 2019
Sharad Arvind Bobde	18th November 2019 – 23rd April 2021
NV Ramana	24th April 2021 – 26th August 2022
U U Lalit	27th August 2022 – 8th November 2022
DY Chandrachud	9th November 2022 – Cebu Incumbent

The High Court

The establishment of High Courts in India dates back to 1862, with the creation of High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. In 1966, a fourth High Court was established in Allahabad.
Article 214 stipulates that the High Courts hold the apex position in the state judiciary, with one High Court designated for each state. The state judiciary comprises a High Court an subordinate courts.
Additionally, the Parliament has the authority, as per Article 231 and the 7th Amendment Act, 1956, to establish a common High Court for one or more states and one or more Union Territories.
Every High Court is recognized as a Court of Record under Article 215.
As of May 2023, there are 25 High Courts across the country.

Key Constitutional Provisions

Article 214: High Courts for States
Article 215: High Courts to be Courts of Record
Article 216: Constitution of High Courts
Article 219: Oath or affirmation by Judges of High Courts
Article 222: Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another
Article 224: Appointment of additional and acting Judges
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
Article 227: Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
Article 228: Transfer of certain cases to the High Court
Article 230: Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to Union Territories

Qualifications for Judges

The Constitution outlines specific qualifications for an individual to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court:
Must be a citizen of India
Must have held a judicial office in the territory of India for a minimum of ten years.
Alternatively, must have been an Advocate of a High Court or two or more such courts successively for at least ten years.

Appointment of the judges

By Article 216, each High Court is comprised of a Chief Justice and additional Judges appointed by the President as needed.
Unlike the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Judges in a High Court.
Under Article 217, the President appoints every Judge of a High Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State. The President is also empowered to appoint:
Additional judges for a temporary period, not exceeding two years, to address backlog issues in a High Court.
An acting judge in cases where a permanent Judge (other than the Chief Justice) is temporarily absent or unable to perform duties. The acting judge assumes the role of Chief Justice temporarily until the permanent judge resumes office. Neither additional nor acting judges can serve beyond the age of 62 years (now extended to 64 years).
In the appointment of a High Court Judge, the President is required to consult the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, except in the case of appointing the Chief Justice.

Retired Judges

The Chief Justice of India can invite a retired High Court Judge to serve temporarily.
This action requires consent from both the President of India and the individual being appointed.
The appointed individual in this scenario receives a salary and allowances determined by the President of India.

Tenure and Oath of High Court Judges

A permanent High Court Judge serves until reaching the age of 62.
Any disputes regarding judges’ age are resolved by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the President’s decision is final.
Judges do not hold office at the pleasure of the President.
According to Article 219, a person appointed as a High Court Judge must take an oath or affirmation before the Governor of the State before assuming office.

Salaries of High Court Judges

As per Article 221, a High Court Judge is entitled to allowances and rights determined by Parliament, especially concerning leave of absence and pension.
The Chief Justice of the High Court receives a salary of ₹2.50 lakh, while other High Court Judges receive a salary of ₹2.25 lakh.
The allowances and rights of a Judge cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.

Removal of Judges

The removal of a High Court Judge is governed by Articles 217(1)(b) and 218 of the Constitution on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity. The terms misbehavior or incapacity are not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
Complaints about misbehavior or incapacity against a judge are investigated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, of 1968, similar to the process for Supreme Court Judges.

Transfer of Judges

Article 222 of the Indian Constitution outlines provisions for transferring a judge, including Chief Justices, from one High Court to another.
In 1977, the Supreme Court determined that the transfer of a High Court Judge should only occur exceptionally and in the public interest, not as a form of punishment.
In the third case (1998), the Supreme Court stated that in the transfer of High Court Judges:
The Chief Justice of India must consult, in addition to the collegium of the four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court,
The Chief Justices of the two High Courts involved (one from which the judge is being transferred and the other receiving him).
Thus, the sole opinion of the Chief Justice of India does not constitute the consultation process.

Jurisdiction of High Courts

The jurisdiction of High Courts is described below:

Original Jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction refers to the power of a High Court to hear disputes initially.
High Courts have Original Jurisdiction over cases arising from Parliament or State Legislature Elections.
Similar to the Supreme Court, they also have Original Jurisdiction in matters related to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The High Courts of the Presidency towns (Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras) have both Original and Appellate Jurisdictions, while other High Courts mostly have Appellate Jurisdiction.

Appellate Jurisdiction

As courts of appeal, all High Courts hear appeals in civil and criminal cases from their subordinate courts and on their own.
However, they lack jurisdiction over tribunals established under laws related to the Armed Forces of the country.
When it comes to civil cases, the High Court’s jurisdiction covers matters tried by Courts of Munsifs and District Judges. In criminal cases, it extends to those decided by Sessions and Additional Sessions Judges.

Writ Jurisdiction

Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs not only for enforcing Fundamental Rights but also for other purposes.
This jurisdiction surpasses that of the Supreme Court, allowing High Courts to issue similar writs, orders, or directions as the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court runs concurrently with that of the Supreme Court, providing aggrieved individuals the option to approach either the High Court or the Supreme Court.

L Chandra Kumar Case Judgement

In the L Chandra Kumar Case Judgement, the court emphasized the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts by Articles 32 and 226, constituting the basic structure of the Constitution and immune to exclusion through constitutional amendments.
As a Court of Record under Article 215, every High Court’s judgments, proceedings, and Acts are recorded for perpetual memory and testimony, holding evidentiary value without questioning when presented before subordinate courts.
The High Court also possesses the power to punish for contempt of court.

Under Supervisory Jurisdiction

Under Supervisory Jurisdiction, High Courts control and supervise subordinate courts, framing rules and regulations for their business transactions.
Article 227 grants the High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, allowing it to call for returns, issue general rules, prescribe forms, and transfer cases.
Article 235 empowers High Courts to control District Courts and subordinate courts in matters of posting, promotion, etc. Additionally, Article 229 ensures complete control over the High Court’s staff, with the Chief Justice having the authority to appoint officers and servants.

Control Over Subordinate courts

In addition to the mentioned jurisdictions, the High Court enjoys supervisory control over subordinate courts, including the appointment of District Judges by the Governor in consultation with High Courts.
The administrative control of High Courts over District Courts and lower courts extends to postings, promotions, and granting leave to individuals within the judicial service of a state.
Article 236 serves as the interpretation clause, explaining terms like District Judge and Judicial Service. The High Court’s laws are binding on all subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.

Plea Bargaining

The introduction of Plea Bargaining in India took place through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. Under this arrangement, the criminal defendant and the prosecutor can reach an agreement, subject to the court’s approval. The accused admits guilt, avoiding a trial, and, in return, receives a lighter punishment.
Post-retirement, a High Court Judge is restricted from serving in any court or authority in India, except in the Supreme Court or a High Court other than the one where they previously served.
The permissible maximum imprisonment under Plea Bargaining is seven years.

The independence of the High Court

The independence of High Court Judges is safeguarded by various constitutional provisions:
Judges of a High Court cannot be assigned to any court or authority in India after retirement, except the Supreme Court or a different High Court.
Judges’ salaries and allowances cannot be altered to their detriment after appointment, except during a Financial Emergency.
Salaries and allowances are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State and are not subject to voting in the State Legislature.
Removal of a High Court Judge can only occur through the President, based on an address from each House of Parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Similar to the Supreme Court, a High Court in India possesses the authority to review its own judgments.

High courts of state /Union Territory

High Court	Jurisdictions	Seats	Benches
Allahabad High Court	Uttar Pradesh	Prayagraj, Lucknow	–
Andhra Pradesh High Court	Andhra Pradesh	Amaravati	–
Bombay High Court	Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu	Mumbai, Nagpur, Panaji, Aurangabad	–
Calcutta High Court	West Bengal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands	Kolkata, Port Blair (Circuit Bench)	–
Chhattisgarh High Court	Chhattisgarh	Bilaspur	–
Delhi High Court	National Capital Territory of Delhi	Delhi	Kohima, Aizwal, Itanagar
Gauhati High Court	Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram	Guwahati	–
Gujarat High Court	Gujarat	Ahmedabad	–
Himachal Pradesh High Court	Himachal Pradesh	Shimla	–
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court	Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh	Srinagar, Jammu	–
Jharkhand High Court	Jharkhand	Ranchi	–
Karnataka High Court	Karnataka	Bengaluru	Gulbarga, Dharwal
Kerala High Court	Kerala, Lakshadweep	Kochi	–
Madhya Pradesh High Court	Madhya Pradesh	Jabalpur, Gwalior, Indore	–
Madras High Court	Tamil Nadu, Puducherry	Chennai, Madurai	–
Manipur High Court	Manipur	Imphal	–
Meghalaya High Court	Meghalaya	Shillong	–
Orissa High Court	Odisha	Cuttack	–
Patna High Court	Bihar	Patna	–
Punjab and Haryana High Court	Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh	Chandigarh	–
Rajasthan High Court	Rajasthan	Jodhpur, Jaipur	–
Sikkim High Court	Sikkim	Gangtok	–
Tripura High Court	Tripura	Agartala	–
Uttarakhand High Court	Uttarakhand	Nainital	–
Telangana High Court	Telangana	Hyderabad	–

Situated in Delhi, the Supreme Court operates independently from the decisions of High Courts.
Judges of the Supreme Court hold immunity from transfers and demotions. Salaries and allowances for Supreme Court Judges are sourced from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Sole jurisdiction over cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution lies with the Supreme Court, which also exclusively issues writs for Fundamental Rights enforcement.
The right to a remedy itself is a Fundamental Right, and the Supreme Court may not reject its Writ Jurisdiction.

Judicial Review

Judicial Review, pioneered by the American Supreme Court, finds its roots in Chief Justice Marshall’s 1803 case Marbury v/s Madison.
It is a legal process where a judge evaluates the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. Judicial review, integral to the Indian judiciary, authorizes courts to scrutinize actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches, ensuring adherence to constitutional rules.
Recognized as a basic constitutional structure, judicial review was extended to constitutional revisions involving Fundamental Rights in the 1973 Bharati Kesavananda case and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1980 Minerva Mill Case.

Types of Judicial Review

High Courts, established in each State and Union Territory, have provisions for multiple States or Union Territories to share a High Court.
Bound by Supreme Court decisions, High Court Judges can be transferred and may ascend to the Supreme Court. Salaries and allowances of High Court Judges are funded by the Consolidated Fund of the States.
While High Courts possess writ jurisdiction beyond Fundamental Rights, their power under Article 226 is discretionary.
They serve as a tool for enforcing control over administrative agencies and can review their own judicial decisions.
Constitutional provisions allowing judicial review of legislation include Article 13, declaring laws violating Fundamental Rights unconstitutional.
Articles 32 and 226 entrust the Supreme and High Courts with guardian and guarantor roles for basic rights.
Articles 131 and 136 empower the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between individuals and the state, as well as between States and the Union.
Article 245 subjects Parliament and State Legislatures to constitutional provisions. In conflicts between Union and State Legislation, Articles 251 and 254 dictate the supremacy of Union law. Article 372 (1) establishes the judicial examination of pre-constitutional legislation.
After the Supreme Court delivers a judgment, a review petition may be filed under Article 137.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a phenomenon where the Judiciary takes an extraordinary role in directing the executive to implement policies and measures deemed necessary due to insufficient policies or administrative gaps.
The foundation of judicial activism in India was established by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice O Chinnappa Reddy, and Justice DA Desal. It establishes a system of checks and balances for other governmental branches, giving judges discretion to exercise judgment when the law fails to create a balance.
Judicial activism fosters confidence in judges and enhances their understanding of problems without compromising their commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a method of settling disputes through negotiation and discussion, offering an alternative to conventional dispute resolution methods.
The goal of ADR is to resolve commercial disputes and conflicts where no attempt has been made to reach a consensus through negotiation or other means.
In India, ADR is enshrined in Article 14 (Equality before the law) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) of equal justice and free legal aid in Article 39(A) can also be achieved through ADR, reducing the burden of litigation and providing a gratifying experience for involved parties.

Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution

There are four types of ADR methods:

Negotiation

The initial and informal approach where parties identify issues and control the process and solution. Transparency is crucial for successful negotiation.

Court-Annexed Mediation vs. Court-Referred Mediation:

Court-Annexed Mediation is provided by the court, involving judges, lawyers, and litigants. Court-Referred Mediation occurs when the court refers the matter to a mediator, often effective in family disputes, divorce cases, and civil issues.

Mediation

A type of assisted negotiation where a neutral third party (mediator) helps parties resolve disputes. Mediation requires active involvement from both sides and can be informal with a mediator who is a trusted friend, family member, or advisor with relevant expertise.
In a formal mediation process, parties may hire a professional, neutral third party trained in negotiations to assist in resolving the issue to satisfy both sides.
Mediation is particularly beneficial when parties believe they cannot resolve a dispute independently.

Conciliation

Similar to mediation, conciliation is confidential, voluntary, and flexible. It involves a neutral third party (conciliator) facilitating a dispute resolution that both parties find satisfactory.
Unlike mediation, the conciliator proposes a resolution, which is non-binding, but formal agreements post-conciliation can be made legally binding.

Arbitration

More formal than negotiation, mediation, and conciliation, arbitration resembles litigation.
It’s a form of private adjudication where a third party hears arguments and renders a confidential and binding judgment (award).
Parties can agree to arbitrate and benefit from flexibility in setting arbitration rules, allowing for a quicker and more cost-effective resolution than formal court procedures.
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2021 aims to make arbitration more investor-friendly, cost-effective, and suitable for quick case resolution.
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
Established in 1899 during the First International Peace Conference in the Hague, the PCA aims to facilitate the arbitration of international disputes.

Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

ADR is less time-consuming than court proceedings, providing a swift resolution.
It is cost-effective, saving expenses associated with litigation.
ADR is free from court technicalities, applying informal methods to resolve disputes.
Parties can freely express themselves without fear of legal repercussions, fostering open communication.
ADR promotes the restoration of relationships as parties discuss issues on a common platform.
It prevents further conflicts, maintains good relationships, and preserves the best interests of the parties.

Dispute Resolution Mechanism under the Indian Legal System

Article 39(A) of the Indian Constitution ensures equal justice by offering free legal assistance to the impoverished and weaker groups.
Articles 14 and 22(1) mandate the state to guarantee equality before the law and a legal system based on justice for all.
The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 established the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to oversee legal aid programs and formulate policies and guidelines for providing legal services in accordance with the Act.

National Legal Services Authorities (NALSA), 1987

Enacted in 1987 by the Parliament, the Legal Services Authorities Act aims to provide free and comprehensive legal services to the weaker sections of society.
It also organizes Lok Adalats for amicable dispute resolution and offers free legal aid to eligible individuals.
The Act establishes the composition of legal service committees at various levels, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, States, Districts, and Talukas.
According to the Act, individuals with an annual income below the prescribed amount by the respective State Government (or less than 5 lakh if the case is before the Supreme Court) are eligible for free legal aid.
Exceptions to these limits include cases related to SCs/STs, women, children, handicapped, etc., and State Governments can increase these limits.
NALSA oversees and evaluates the implementation of legal aid schemes and programs.
It takes necessary steps for promoting legal awareness, such as setting up legal aid clinics in universities and law colleges, training para-legal personnel, and organizing legal aid camps and Lok Adalats/Permanent Lok Adalat.

Subordinate Courts

Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, administrative control over members of the Subordinate Judicial Service lies with the respective High Courts.
The State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames rules and regulations under the powers conferred by Article 309, read with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, to administer subordinate courts.
Members of the State Judicial Service are governed by these rules and regulations.

District Court / Session court in District

Court Type	Jurisdiction	Headed By	Types of Cases Handled	Appellate Authority
District Court/Session Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	District Judge	Civil Cases	High Court
Session Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	Session Judge	Criminal Cases	High Court
Subordinate Judge Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	Subordinate Judge	Civil Cases (Unlimited Pecuniary)	District Court
Munsiff Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	Munsiff	Civil Cases (Lesser Amount)	District Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	Chief Judicial Magistrate	Criminal Cases (Up to 7 years imprisonment)	Session Court
Judicial Magistrate’s Court	Original and Appellate Jurisdiction	Judicial Magistrate	Criminal Cases (Up to 3 years imprisonment)	Chief Judicial Magistrate Court

Appointment of District Judges

District Judges in the state are appointed and promoted by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. To be eligible for appointment as a District Judge, the candidate must:
Not be currently in the service of the Central or State Government.
Have been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years.
Be recommended by the High Court for the appointment.

Structure and Jurisdiction of District Judge

The District Judge serves as the highest judicial authority in the district, wielding original and appellate authority in both civil and criminal matters.
Known as the District Judge for civil cases and the Sessions Judge for criminal cases, the District Judge exercises both judicial and administrative powers, overseeing all subordinate courts in the district.
Appeals against the District Judge’s decisions are heard by the High Court. The Sessions Judge, under criminal jurisdiction, holds the authority to impose penalties, including life imprisonment and capital punishment (subject to High Court confirmation).

Lower Courts

On the civil side, the subordinate judge’s court is positioned below the District and Sessions Court, while on the criminal side, the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court is beneath the District and Sessions Court.

The subordinate judge has unrestricted pecuniary jurisdiction in civil cases, while the Chief Judicial Magistrate handles criminal matters with a maximum sentence of seven years in jail.
The Court of Munsiff (civil side) and the Court of Judicial Magistrate (criminal side) represent the lowest levels.
Established in various states and presidential towns, Small Causes Courts make swift decisions in civil matters, and their decisions are final. The High Court retains the authority to overturn them.

Revenue Courts

Handling land revenue cases in the state, Revenue Courts include the Board of Revenue, Commissioners’ Court, Collectors’ Court, Tehsildars’ Court, and Assistant Tehsildars’ Court.
The Board of Revenue hears final appeals against lower revenue courts.

Mobile Court

A mobile court is a court set up in a vehicle, providing cost-effective and speedy justice.
The first mobile court in the country was inaugurated in Haryana’s Mewat district, aiming to make the judicial system accessible to remote and backward areas.

Lok Adalat

Lok Adalats, also known as People’s Court, are community-driven dispute resolution mechanisms. Operating as an alternative dispute settlement, Lok Adalats settle disputes through conciliation and mediation, facilitating quick case disposal without fees.
Established as statutory forums under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Lok Adalats can resolve legal disputes from civil, criminal, revenue courts, and tribunals, excluding non-compoundable criminal cases.
Presided over by a sitting or retired Judicial Official, Lok Adalats include two other members—a legal practitioner and a social worker.

The inaugural Lok Adalat took place on March 14, 1982, in Junagarh, Gujarat, introducing its distinct procedural methods.
Endowed with the powers of a Civil Court, a Lok Adalat can summon evidence, examine witnesses, requisition public records, etc. This lawyer-free process ensures that awards passed must be complied with within a month.
A Lok Adalat holds jurisdiction over:
- Any pending case before a court.
- Any matter within a court’s jurisdiction not brought before it.
- Thus, Lok Adalats address both pending court cases and pre-litigation disputes.
Handling a diverse range of issues such as matrimonial disputes, criminal cases, land acquisition, labor disputes, bank recoveries, and more, Lok Adalats persuade parties to reach a settlement or compromise. The awards issued are final, with no avenue for appeal.

Permanent Lok Adalats

Permanent Lok Adalats, established in 2002 by NALSA or SLSA, specialize in settling public utility disputes through compromise.
Comprising a Chairman (District Judge or additional District Judge) and two experienced individuals in public utility services, they exercise jurisdiction over specific public utility services. Monetary jurisdiction is limited to 1 crore, and their awards are final and binding.
The Family Courts Act of 1984 mandated the establishment of family courts to facilitate conciliation and prompt resolution of marriage and family disputes.
Aimed at protecting legal rights and restoring family harmony, the Act obligates State Governments to set up Family Courts in cities or towns with populations exceeding one million.
Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters such as matrimonial relief (including nullity of marriage, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, or declaration of marriage validity), property disputes between spouses, declarations of legitimacy, guardianship, custody of minors, and maintenance for spouses, children, and parents.
These courts can establish their own settlement procedures through regulations in consultation with High Courts, and the only avenue for appeal is with the High Courts.
The aim is to create a flexible and informal atmosphere for procedures, providing an affordable remedy for victims.

The National Green Tribunal

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established on October 18, 2010, under the NGT Act of 2010, serves as a specialized body for handling environmental disputes with multi-disciplinary issues.
It replaced the National Environment Appellate Authority and aligns with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring a healthy environment for citizens. India, after Australia and New Zealand, became the third country to establish such a specialized environmental tribunal, marking a significant step for a developing nation.
The objectives of the NGT include the effective and prompt resolution of cases related to environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.
Additionally, the NGT aims to provide relief and compensation for damages caused to individuals and properties in environmental disputes.

Children’s and Juvenile Court

Children’s and Juvenile Court caters to the unique psychological needs and conditions of children and adolescents.
To ensure its effective operation, Juvenile Justice Committees have been established in the High Court, led by a sitting judge. The State Government is responsible for forming a three-member Juvenile Justice Board for a district or multiple districts, with one member being a psychology or child welfare expert, and two members being social workers (with one being female).
Juveniles are typically not punished; instead, they are placed in special homes for community service or more severe offenses.
Appeals against the decisions of the Juvenile Justice Board can be made to the High Court.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015) includes provisions such as changing the term “teenager” to “child,” trying and punishing juveniles aged 16-18 years as adults for heinous crimes, imposing 3-7 years of imprisonment for serious offenses, and mandating the existence of Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare and Protection centers in each district.
In the realm of military justice, court martial handles actions related to military crimes.
These courts are presided over by the highest-ranking officers of the army to prevent external interference.
Proceedings under the Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act, 1950, and Navy Act, 1957 are expressly prohibited in the Indian Judiciary/Supreme and High Court under Article 136(2) and Article 227.
The Code of Criminal Procedure applies to military personnel, noting that there is no Appellate Jurisdiction against Court Martial in the Supreme Court or High Court, as per Articles 136(2) and 227(4).
Appeals can only be made through Article 32 writ jurisdiction under 226. The Armed Forces Tribunal in Delhi handles appeals from military courts.

Fast Track Courts

Fast Track Courts, akin to District Courts, are established for the swift disposal of pending criminal cases, especially those two years or more old.
Initially recommended by the 11th Finance Commission in 2000 for a 5-year term, their tenure was extended.
These courts have played a crucial role in delivering justice to innocent accused and individuals convicted of minor crimes.

Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs)

Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) were set up by the Union Government in 2019 to expedite the trial and disposal of pending cases of rape and offenses against children under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO), 2012.

The National Mission for Safety of Women oversees the FTSCs, with their composition including one Judicial Officer and seven staff members.

e-Lok Adalat

During the COVID-19 pandemic, e-Lok Adalats were introduced, integrating technology for virtual platforms.
Organized simultaneously with regular Lok Adalats, they handle cases referred by various courts, tribunals, and institutions for pre-litigation matters.

The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008

The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, effective from October 2, 2009, aims to establish Gram Nyayalayas at the grassroots level, providing accessible justice.
More than 5000 Gram Nyayalayas are expected to be set up, reducing case pendency in subordinate courts by 50%.
These courts, presided over by Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, exercise both criminal and civil court powers.
The Central Government covers non-recurring expenditures, ensuring justice is not denied based on social and economic conditions.
Appeals in criminal matters can be lodged with the Sessions Court within the respective jurisdiction, and for civil matters, the District Court must be approached within one month from the date of judgment.
Gram Nyayalayas are tasked with handling criminal cases, civil lawsuits, claims, or disputes listed in the First Schedule and Second Schedule of the Act.
These courts strive to facilitate conciliation between the involved parties and are not bound by the Rules of Evidence in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but adhere to principles of natural justice.
Individuals accused of offenses have the option to file applications for plea bargaining.

Tribunals

A tribunal is a statutory, quasi-judicial body established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature to efficiently resolve disputes in a speedy and cost-effective manner.
The original Constitution lacked provisions regarding tribunals, but the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced a new Part XIV(A) entitled “tribunals,” comprising only two Articles: Article 323(A) addressing administrative tribunals and Article 323(B) addressing tribunals for other matters.

Administrative Tribunals

Article 323(A) empowers Parliament to establish administrative tribunals.
It grants Parliament the authority to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and conditions of service for individuals appointed to public services corporations and other public authorities.
In essence, Article 323(A) allows Parliament to transfer the adjudication of service-related disputes from civil courts and High Courts to administrative tribunals.
Pursuant to Article 323(A), Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985, authorizing the Central Government to
To address the issue of court overload and expedite the justice process, the 42nd Amendment Act sanctioned the establishment of a central administrative tribunal and state administrative tribunals. The Supreme Court exclusively handles cases related to service matters.
The President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, appoints the Chairman and other Members of both the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
The Chairman must have served as a High Court Judge for at least two years or as the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. Both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman enjoy the status of a High Court Judge, with a retirement age of 65 years.
Other members from the administration have a retirement age of 62 years and are not eligible for reappointment.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

Established in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act (1985) of Parliament, CAT is a statutory body dealing with disputes related to recruitment and service matters.
Comprising a Chairman, 16 Vice-Chairmen, and 49 Members, it aims to provide speedy and cost-effective justice to aggrieved civil servants.
The terms for Chairman and Vice-Chairman are five years or until they turn 65, and for members, it’s five years or until they reach 62.
The tribunal, which includes members from judicial and administrative backgrounds, operates on the principles of natural justice and is not bound by the Civil Procedure Code (1908).
CAT’s jurisdiction extends to members of the All-India Services, Central Service, and Posts, functioning under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel and Training, a department of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions.

Exempted from the purview of Administrative Tribunals (ATs) are:

Employees of the Supreme Court and the High Court
Armed Forces personnel
Employees of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha
In the Chandra Kumar Case (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that appeals against the orders of the CAT shall be heard before the division bench of the concerned High Courts and later on in the Supreme Court.

State Administrative Tribunals (SATs):

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central Government to establish State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) upon specific requests from the concerned State Governments.
Similar to the CAT, SATs exercise Original Jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of State Government employees.
The President appoints the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of the SATs after consultation with the Governor of the respective state.
The Act also provides for the establishment of Joint Administrative Tribunals (JAT) for two or more states, consolidating the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by administrative tribunals in those states.
The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of a JAT are appointed by the President after consultation with the Governors of the concerned states.

Tribunals for Other Matters:

Under Article 323(B), Parliament and State Legislatures are authorized to establish tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to various matters such as taxation, foreign exchange, import and export, industrial and labor issues, land reforms, ceiling on urban property, foodstuffs, rent and tenancy rights, and elections to Parliament and State Legislature.

Difference between Articles 323(A) and 323(B):

Article 323(A) pertains to the establishment of tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323(B) covers tribunals for certain other matters.
Tribunals under Article 323(A) can be established only by Parliament, whereas tribunals under Article 323(B) can be established by both Parliament and State Legislatures within their legislative competence.
Under Article 323(A), only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each State or two or more states may be established without a hierarchy, whereas under Article 323(B), a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.

Prelims Facts

The creation of the Federal Court in India was mandated by the Government of India Act 1935 [UPPSC (Pre) 20141].
The guardian of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India is the Judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India serves as the custodian of the Constitution of India [MPPSC (Pre) 2010, 2015; IAS (Pre) 2015; UPPSC (Pre) 2022].
The supremacy of the Indian Constitution is upheld by the Supreme Court [Mizoram PSC (Pre) 20161]
A minimum of five judges of the Supreme Court is required for hearing any case involving the interpretation of the Constitution [UPPSC (Pre) 2012].
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in the Parliament [BPSC (Pre) 2000, 2001; IAS (Pre) 2014].
The Supreme Court of India differs from its counterpart in the USA in its advisory role [UPSC (Pre) 2016].
The Supreme Court in India was inaugurated on 28th January 1950 [MPPSC (Pre) 2013].
Judges of the Supreme Court of India are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court [UPPSC (Pre) 2000; UDA/LDA (Mains) 2006, 2007].
The ‘Collegium System’ in India was first introduced in relation to the Judiciary [Odisha PSC (Pre) 2015; UKPSC (Pre) 2016].
The convention of appointing the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as Chief Justice of India was broken in the appointment of Justice AN Ray [Nagaland PSC (Pre) 2015].
The Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of ‘Ad Hoc Judges’ in the Supreme Court [UPPSC (Mains) 2004; UPPSC (Pre) 2010].
To become a judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be an advocate in the High Court for at least 10 years [MPPSC (Pre) 2002].
The age of retirement for a Supreme Court judge is 65 years [WBCS (Pre) 2014].
A judge of the Supreme Court may resign by writing a letter to the President [UPPSC (Pre) 2014; BPSC (Pre) 2018].
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court safeguards the Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens [WBCS (Pre) 2014].
A Curative Petition in India can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 142 [UPPSC (Mains) 2014].
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its Original jurisdiction [IAS (Pre) 1996, 2014; Odisha PSC (Pre) 2014].
Article 132 + Article 134 (A) of the Constitution of India deal with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in connection with Constitution cases [UPPSC (Pre) 2001; UPPSC (Mains) 2004].
Article 137 of the Constitution permits the Supreme Court to review its own judgment or order.
All cases regarding the interpretation of the Constitution can be brought to the Supreme Court under its Original jurisdiction [UPPSC (Pre) 2013].
The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India extends to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights only [JPSC (Pre) 2009].
Quo Warranto is issued by the court to prevent a person from holding an office to which he is not entitled [Manipur PSC (Pre) 2008].
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed in both High Court and Supreme Court [UKPSC (Pre) 2014].
Judicial review in the Indian Constitution is based on the procedure established by law [Nagaland PSC (Pre) 2014; CGPSC (Pre) 2015].
The system of judicial review is prevalent in both India and the USA [UPPSC (Mains) 2013].
Judicial review means that the Supreme Court can declare any law of the state illegal [BPSC (Pre) 1994].
The constitutional principle of the ‘basic structure’ was invented by the Judiciary [IAS (Pre) 2001].
Articles 32, 226, and 227 of the Indian Constitution have been declared by the Supreme Court as the “Inviolable Basic Structure” [UPPSC (Pre) 1999].

UPSC NCERT Practice Questions

1. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India.

1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.

2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India.

3. The salaries of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not vote.

4. All appointments of officers and staffs of the Supreme Court are made by the government only after consulting Chief Justice of India.

Select the correct answer using the codes given below.

(a) 1 and 3

(b) 3 and 4

(d) All of these

2. Which of the following are included in the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? IAS (Pre) 2012

1. Dispute between the Government of India and one or more states.

2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the Parliament or that of Legislature of a State.

3. A dispute between the Government of India and Union Territory.

4. A disputes between two or more states.

Select the correct answer using the codes given below.

(a) 1 and 2

(b) 2 and 3

(d) 3 and 4

3. With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in Ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the Constitution powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the IAS (Pre) 2019 Following?

(a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.

(b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.

(c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.

(d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union

Legislature.

4. Which of the following statements are correct? MPSC (Pre) 2014

1. The Supreme Court cannot interfere with the delimitation of the constituencies.

2. The Supreme Court cannot question the detention or arrest of a person or an Act, if it has been made in accordance with the procedure established by law.

3. The Supreme Court cannot declare unconstitutional a law passed by the Parliament.

4. The Supreme Court cannot question the decision of the Speaker as to whether a bill is a Money Bill or not.

Select the correct answer by using the codes given below.

(a) 2,3 and 4

(b) 1,2 and 4

(d) All of these

5. Which Constitutional Amendment Act dealing with National Judicial Appointments Commission, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court? RAS/RTS (Pre) 2021

(a) 98th Constitutional Amendment Act

(b) 99th Constitutional Amendment Act

(d) 100th Constitutional Amendment Act

6. The power to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in IAS (Pre) 2014

(a) the President of India

b) the Parliament

(d) the Law Commission

7. The resignation letter by a Judge of Supreme Court is addressed to UPPSC (Pre) 2023

(a) the President

(b) the Chief Justice of India

(d) the seniormost Judge of Supreme Court

8. With reference to the writs issued by the courts in India, consider the following statements. IAS (Pre) 2022

1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.

2. Mandamus will not lie against a company even though it may be a government company.

3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statement (s) given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2

(b) 2 and 3

(d) All of these

9. Consider the following statements concerning the powers of the Supreme Court to issue certain writs to stop violation of Fundamental Rights

1. The Supreme Court has power to issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari which is appropriate for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

2. Parliament may by law empower any other court of excerise within its jurisdiction the powers given to Supreme Court.

Which of the above mentioned statement/statements is/are correct?

Select the correct answer from the code given below

(a) Neither 1 nor 2

(b) Only 1

(d) Both 1 and 2

10. Consider the following statements. IAS (Pre) 2022

1. Pursuant to the report of HN Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.

2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.

3. The Constitution of India defines civil contempt and criminal contempt.

4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on contempt of court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2

(b) 1, 2 and 4

(d) Only 3

11. Assertion (A) The Supreme Court of India has exclusive jurisdiction regarding constitutional validity of Central laws. Reason (R) The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Indian Constitution. UPPSC (Pre) 2019

Codes

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.

(b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(d) A is false, but R is true.

12. Consider the following statements. MPPSC (Pre) 2017

1. The retired permanent Judge of a High Court can plead or act before the Supreme Court and the other

High Courts.

2. Conduct of High Court Judges can be discussed in Parliament or in a State Legislature at the time of an impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.

Which of the statements) given above is/are correct?

(a) Only 1

(b) Only 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

13. Consider the following statements. IAS (Pre) 2005

1. A person who has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court cannot plead or act in any court of before any authority in India except the Supreme

Court.

2. A person is not qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court in India unless he has for atleast fire years held a judicial office in the lerritory of India.

Which of the statement (s) given above is/are correct?

(a) Only 1

(b) Only 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

14. Consider the following statements. IAS (Pre) 2021

1. The Constitution of India defines its basic structure in terms of Federalism, Secularism, Fundamental Rights and Democracy.

2. The Constitution of India provides for judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.

Which of the statement (s) given above is/are correct?

(a) Only 1

(b) Only 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

15. In India, judicial review implies UPPSC (Pre) 2017, IAS (Pre) 2017

(a) The power of the judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.

(b) The power of the judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the legislatures.

(d) The power of the judiciary to review its own judgements given earlier in similar or different cases.

16. With reference to National Legal Services Authority, consider the following statements IAS (Pre) 2013

1. Its objective is to ensure free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society on the basis of equal opportunity.

2. It issues guidelines to the State Legal Services authorities to implement the legal programmes and schemes throughout the country.

Which of the statement (s) given above is/are correct?

(a) Only 1

(b) Only 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Know Right Answer

1. (a)

2. (c)

3. (b)

4. (b)

5. (b)

6. (b)

7.(b)

8.(c)

9.(d)

10.(b)

11. (d)

12.(c)

13.(a)

14.(c)

15.(a)

16.(c)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why is it essential to study the judiciary in Indian Polity for UPSC exams?

A1: Understanding the judiciary is crucial for UPSC exams because it forms a vital component of the Indian political and legal system. The judiciary plays a significant role in upholding the Constitution, interpreting laws, and safeguarding the rights of citizens. A thorough knowledge of the judicial structure, functions, and landmark judgments helps aspirants comprehend the nuances of the Indian legal framework, enabling them to answer questions related to governance, constitutional provisions, and current affairs.

Q2: Which NCERT notes are recommended for Indian Polity – The judiciary for UPSC preparation?

A2: For UPSC preparation in Indian Polity – The judiciary, aspirants are advised to refer to NCERT Class 11 Political Science book, titled “Indian Constitution at Work.” This book provides a comprehensive overview of the Indian judiciary, its structure, functions, and its role in upholding the rule of law. Additionally, candidates can supplement their preparation with relevant chapters from other standard reference books and legal publications to gain a deeper insight into judicial concepts and recent developments.

Q3: How can knowledge of the judiciary’s independence and functions contribute to scoring well in the UPSC Indian Polity paper?

A3: In the UPSC Indian Polity paper, questions related to the judiciary often focus on its independence, functions, and its role in safeguarding constitutional principles. A solid understanding of these aspects allows aspirants to provide nuanced and well-informed answers. By incorporating landmark judgments, recent legal developments, and understanding the checks and balances within the judicial system, candidates can showcase their analytical abilities and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the judiciary’s significance in Indian governance.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.

For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS

1. Learn through Videos – here
2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here

UPSC NCERT Notes – Indian Polity – The Judiciary

Integrated Structure of Indian Judiciary:

In Districts

In Metropolitan Areas

The Supreme Court:

Historical Background of the Supreme Court:

Articles Related to the Supreme Court

Composition of the Supreme Court

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

Collegium System

Three Judges Cases on Consultation in the Collegium System

Qualifications and Oath/Affirmations

Term of Office

Salaries and Allowances of Supreme Court Judges

Removal of a Supreme Court Judge

Process of Impeachment

Officials of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India:

Adhoc Judges

Retired Judges

Seat and Benches of the Supreme Court

Amicus Curiae

Judicial Independence

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Original Jurisdiction

Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction

Constitutional Appeals

Civil Appeals

Criminal Appeals

Appeal by Special Leave

Advisory Jurisdiction

Transfer Petitions

Revisory Jurisdiction

Case of Ninth Schedule

Other Jurisdiction

A Court of Record

Supreme Court as the Guardian of the Constitution

Contemplating Contempt of Court, it manifests in two forms:

Curative Petition

Distinctions between the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of America (USA)

Important Supreme Court Cases

Various Legal Doctrines

Public Interest Litigation

Locus Standi

Female Judges in the Supreme Court of India

Chief Justice of India and their Tenure

The High Court

Key Constitutional Provisions

Qualifications for Judges

Appointment of the judges

Retired Judges

Tenure and Oath of High Court Judges

Salaries of High Court Judges

Removal of Judges

Transfer of Judges

Jurisdiction of High Courts

Original Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction

Writ Jurisdiction

L Chandra Kumar Case Judgement

Under Supervisory Jurisdiction

Control Over Subordinate courts

Plea Bargaining

The independence of the High Court

High courts of state /Union Territory

Judicial Review

Types of Judicial Review

Judicial Activism

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Negotiation

Court-Annexed Mediation vs. Court-Referred Mediation:

Mediation

Conciliation

Arbitration

Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Dispute Resolution Mechanism under the Indian Legal System

National Legal Services Authorities (NALSA), 1987

Subordinate Courts