Introduction
The federal power-sharing structure is the bedrock of Indian democracy. The legislative and executive branches have the authority to make and enforce laws. However, the Judiciary has sole jurisdiction over the interpretation of laws and the protection of people’ rights. As a result, it is referred to as the “custodian of the constitution,” which refers to the guardian and interpreter of the constitution. The Judiciary has the final decision in disputes regarding constitutional legitimacy and the law.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has appellate, original, and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Centre and a state or states, as well as cases affecting the enforcement of individuals’ basic rights. The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned in respect of any judgement, decree, or final order of a High Court, in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution or any law. The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction can also be called through the residuary authority of Special Leave Petition, which should be used only when a major question of law is involved or a great injustice has occurred. Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts and tribunals in the nation and serve as precedent for subordinate courts. According to Article 141 of the Constitution, all courts in India must obey the Supreme Court’s ruling as the rule of law. Furthermore, Article 142 of the Constitution authorises the Supreme Court to issue any order required to provide complete justice to the parties. Over the years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly relied on Article 142 to achieve justice, and has added ideas such as absolute culpability, prospective application of a specific ruling, and so on.
High Courts
High Courts have authority over the states in which they sit. In India, there are now 25 High Courts. However, only a few High Courts have jurisdiction over several states or union territories: the Bombay (Mumbai) High Court, the Calcutta High Court (Kolkata), the Guwahati High Court, the High Court of Judicature in Hyderabad, the Madras (Chennai) High Court, and the Punjab and Haryana High Courts. The Bombay High Court, for example, is located in Mumbai, the state capital of Maharashtra. Its jurisdiction, however, extends to the states of Maharashtra and Goa, as well as the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. High Courts typically have only writ and appellate jurisdiction, however a few High Courts have original jurisdiction and can hear cases. The rulings of the High Court are binding on all lower courts in the State over which it has authority.
The District Courts
District Courts in India handle judicial proceedings at the local level. These courts, which are presided over by a judge, are administratively and judicially governed by the High Courts of the individual states to which the District belongs. District Courts report to their respective High Courts. All civil appeals from District Courts are heard by the State High Court. At this level, there are several subsidiary courts that report to the District Courts. There is a Civil Judge’s Court as well as a Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court. While the former handles civil matters, the latter investigates criminal cases and offences.
Lower Courts of Appeal
Lower courts (below district courts) are known as Munsif’s courts and petty causes courts in various states. These courts only have original jurisdiction and can only hear modest claims. As a result, Presidency- Small Causes Courts cannot hear a matter when the sum requested exceeds Rs. 2,000. Civil courts, on the other hand, have unrestricted monetary jurisdiction in some states. Judicial officials in these courts are selected based on their performance in competitive examinations conducted by the several State Public Service Commissions.
Commercial Court
Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Divisions, and Commercial Divisions in High Courts were established throughout India to specifically deal with matters pertaining to “commercial disputes” of a value greater than Rs.3,00,000 arising out of a wide range of transactions, including export/import, maritime, franchising, distribution & licencing, consultancy, joint venture, intellectual property, insurance, investment agreements, and so on. The approach used by Commercial Courts differs from and is tougher in certain ways than the technique used in the adjudication of other civil issues in general.
Tribunals
Special courts or tribunals exist to provide effective and timely justice (particularly in administrative affairs) as well as specialised competence pertaining to specific types of conflicts. In India, several Tribunals have been established to investigate a variety of serious issues. The Tribunals are not required to follow any consistent method as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act, but they must adhere to Natural Justice principles. The following Tribunals deserve particular mention:
- Appellate Tribunal for Income Tax
- Tribunal Central Administrative
- Chennai Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal
- Claims Tribunal for Railways
- Electricity Appellate Tribunal
- Debt Collection Tribunal
- Appellate Tribunal for Central Excise and Service Tax
- National Business Law Tribunal
- Appellate Tribunal for Telecom Disputes
- Appellate Tribunal for Competition
For example, the Rent Controller resolves rent problems, Family Courts resolve divorce and child custody disputes, Consumer Tribunals resolve consumer issues, Industrial Tribunals and/or Courts resolve labour conflicts, Tax Tribunals resolve tax difficulties, and so on. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was formed to facilitate and expedite company liquidation procedures, dispute settlement, and compliance with certain sections of the Companies Act of 2013.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The emergence of voluntary organisations known as Lok Adalats (Peoples’ Courts) is an intriguing characteristic of the Indian judicial system. These forums, which are supervised by the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, settle disputes using methods such as Conciliation and Negotiation. Every Lok Adalat award is believed to be a civil court judgement and is binding on the parties to the dispute. The ADR mechanism has also shown to be one of the most effective procedures for resolving international economic disputes. In India, legislation governing conflict resolution have been updated from time to time to allow timely dispute settlement in keeping with the changing circumstances. Out-of-court settlements have also been pushed by the judiciary in order to reduce the growing backlog of cases waiting in the courts. Organizations such as the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) and the International Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ICADR) were founded to efficiently apply the ADR method. The ICADR is an autonomous organisation that promotes and develops ADR facilities and processes in India under the auspices of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, with its headquarters in New Delhi. ICA was founded in 1965 and is the supreme arbitral body at the national level. The ICA’s principal goal is to encourage peaceful and rapid resolution of industrial and commercial disputes through arbitration. Furthermore, the Arbitration Act of 1940 was abolished, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 established a new and functional arbitration system. This legislation is based on the International Commercial Arbitration Council model developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 was amended in 2015 to make significant changes, including establishing a model fee schedule for arbitrators, limiting court interference in arbitration cases, limiting the time schedule for completion of arbitral proceedings, and providing for “Fast Track” proceedings to complete proceedings within 6 months. In 2019, a few further revisions to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were adopted, most notably the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India to develop laws controlling arbitrator grading, accreditation, and providing recommendations to the Government of India on different issues.
Similarly, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, has been changed from time to time to promote the employment of ADR procedures in order to make the ADR mechanism more effective and in line with the demanding societal context. For successful conflict resolution, Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as revised in 2002, introduced conciliation, mediation, and pre-trial settlement procedures. Mediation, conciliation, negotiation, mini-trials, Lok Adalats, and Banking Ombudsman are already acknowledged and regarded as successful alternative dispute-resolution methods. A quick summary of a few often utilised ADR techniques follows:
1. Negotiation: A non-binding method in which negotiations between the parties begin without the participation of a third party, with the goal of reaching a negotiated settlement of the problem.
2. Conciliation: In this scenario, the parties submit to the counsel of a conciliator, who meets with each of them individually and attempts to resolve their differences. Conciliation is a non-binding technique in which the conciliator supports the disputing parties in reaching a mutually agreeable and agreed-upon resolution of the issue.
3. Mediation: A non-binding technique in which an impartial third party known as a mediator attempts to help the settlement process but cannot compel the resolution, and the parties are free to decide based on their convenience and terms.
4. Arbitration: It is a technique of resolving disputes outside of court in which the parties send the disagreement to one or more arbitrators who assess the case and provide a ruling that is legally binding on both parties. Arbitration provisions are typically included in business agreements where the parties agree to employ an arbitration procedure in the event of future disputes over the contract terms and conditions.
Conclusion
The preceding article appropriately discusses the hierarchy of the courts and justice system in India, with an emphasis on the country’s judicial system. It is clear that the function of the Indian Constitution, together with other regulations and legislation enacted from time to time to enhance the country’s court system, plays a significant role in this regard.
It is frequently questioned if the three-tiered judicial structure is indeed essential for administering the country’s legal system. The firm foundation and demonstrated utility of the courts demonstrate that a large country like India requires the present system of judicial procedure to offer the finest possible judiciary to the citizens of India.
It is important to remember the number of human resources deployed in the system through direct or ancillary services related to the judicial system, and with their constant effort, the judiciary system proves to be efficient when considering the number of disputes raised every day and the level of response extended by the courts refer to the disputes.
Name : Roshni Singh
College : Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
