This article is written by Sam S Siryon, a 3rd semester BA.LLB Honors student at Apeejay Stya University during his Internship at LeDriot India.
Abstract
Every court has a certain authority to entertain cases which are being assigned according to the court’s hierarchical structure and specific grants of jurisdiction that defines the types of cases they can hear, their geographical limits as well as whether they are trial or appellate courts. The authority of a court to hear a particular matter is typically know as its jurisdiction. Understanding the nature of courtroom authority ensures access to justice and prevent the misuse of judicial power as it upholds the rule of law, ensuring fairness, maintain order and protects the rights of individuals within the legal system.
A Judge’s authority ensures that proceedings are conducted impartially, and free from bias or external influence. This is known as fairness, allowing parties to have their cases heard properly regardless of their status or resources. This authority also enables judges to control proceedings, prevent disruptions and ensure cases are moved in an orderly and timely manner. This effectiveness is essential for preventing backlogs that can deny timely justice.
Keywords
Courtroom Fairness, Hierarchical Structure, Misuse of Judicial Power
Introduction
The concept of jurisdiction evolved from early notions of sovereign authority and geographical control t a formalized legal framework that defines the specific powers and territorial limits of a court of law. Jurisdiction has since been closely tied to the development of the state and the need for an organized system of justice.
In contemporary judicial systems, jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and international law that clearly defines the legal authority of courts based on territorial boundaries, subject matter, and the parties involved. Thus, modern courts derive their powers from the constitution or specific statutes that are passed by the legislature, and the concept of independent judiciary which makes the courts free from executive interference has since been the cornerstone of the Judicial system.
Courtroom authority can be traced to have originated from ancient royal/tribunal councils where rulers dispensed justice, evolving through medieval systems formalizing under sovereign power to create independent judicial bodies, and developing professional legal roles like judges and lawyers from advisors to clergy, ultimately being codified in modern constitutions like India’s constitution for impartial justice delivery. In its ancient roots, early courts were essentially the King’s court where the monarch sat to hear cases and acted as the ultimate source of justice. In ancient India, systems existed with village (Kula), guild (Shreni), and clan (Gana) courts, with hierarchies for review and specialized Adhkrita (King’s appointed) courts for serious crimes, showing early formal structures. The contemporary judicial system in India has its roots in the colonial period where East India company created courts with European judges who followed English law. The British founded the Sadar Diwani Adalat and brought common law to India. They were succeeded by the institution of high courts. Three High courts rose to prominence in their respective regions and handled appeals as well as original jurisdiction matters. The Bombay, Calcutta and the Madras High Courts were created by the enactment of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.
Research Methodologies
This paper is explanatory and descriptive in nature, using both primary and secondary sources to elucidate the subject matter in an authentic and concise manner, primary sources like constitutional provisions, case laws and statutory legislations are implored to provide a detail-specific explanation whereas, secondary sources like reputable journals, blogs and articles are used for conciseness and simplicity, and all information are given due credits.
Concept of Jurisdiction in Court’s Hierarchy
Jurisdiction may refer to the authority or power a court, government or official has to make judgements, enforce laws and exercise control, limited by territory, subject matter, or the persons involved. This ensures that a body can speak the law on specific issues within defined boundaries. Jurisdiction defines who can hear a case, what kind of case they can hear (subject matter), and where (geographical area), preventing and ensuring fairness. Jurisdiction may also be defined as the extent to which a court of law can exercise its authority over suits, cases, and appeals.
The rationale behind introducing the concept of jurisdiction in law is that a court should be able to try and adjudicate only matters with which is has some connection or matters which falls within the geographical or political limits of its authority. Court’s hierarchy refers to the structures and levels of the court system while jurisdiction refers to the power of such courts within the hierarchy. Both hierarchy and jurisdiction enable fair appeals, and establishes binding legal precedents which ensures legal consistency and prevents chaos by assigning specialized roles, thereby making justice systematic and accessible.
In a landmark judgement of Republic of Italy v. Union of India, it was held that India has the sovereign right to exercise jurisdiction up to 24 nautical miles, relevant for crimes committed in territorial waters, setting [precedent for international jurisdiction.
The court hierarchy divides the court system into several components and assigned specialized roles to each court within the hierarchical system. The Supreme Court (apex court) is positioned at the highest rank within the Pyramid and is the final interpreter of the Constitution as it hears appeals from High courts, deals in constitutional matters and presidential elections.
The High Courts which are at the State level supervises lower courts, handling appeals from district courts, and has original jurisdiction in some cases like writ petitions. District Courts which operates at the district level and is usually headed by a District Judge, handles major civil and criminal cases within a district. It also has appellate power over subordinate courts. The subordinate courts which are at the lowest rank of the Court hierarchy operates based on monetary value as in cases of civil matters and criminal proceedings as in criminal matters.
Kinds of Jurisdiction
The constitution of India primarily defines jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and by extension the High Court, as Original, Appellate, and Advisory which covers disputes between States/Centre, constitutional appeals and presidential references while general judicial functioning also involves Territorial, Pecuniary, Subject-Matter, and Writ jurisdictions for courts. This ensures that cases are heard in the right forum. As a federal court, the Supreme Court is empowered by the constitution of India to decide on disputes between different units of the Indian Federation, including any disputes:
- Between the Centre and one or ore states; or
- Between the Centre and one or more States on one side and one or more States on the other side; or
- Between two or more States
This jurisdiction is thus, the Supreme Court’s exclusive and original jurisdiction, which means that no other courts can decide such matters and that the Supreme Court has the power to hear such disputes in its first instance, not by way of appeals.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction; Concept Scope and Provisions
Pecuniary jurisdiction defines a court’s power to hear cases based on the monetary value or financial worth of the dispute, setting limits on what a court can decide, with the lower courts handling smaller amounts while the higher courts handles larger sums. This ensures efficiency by preventing overburdening higher courts and directing cases to the appropriate judicial level, typically following the provisions of section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedures (CPC) where suits must start at the lowest competent court. The term pecuniary means ‘relating to money’ therefore, pecuniary jurisdiction is a court’s authority limited by the monetary value of the case, with each court having its own specific financial boundaries for cases which it tries.
The purpose of this kind of jurisdiction is to distribute workload efficiently, preventing higher courts from handling minor disputes and ensures access to justice by having specialized courts for different financial scales. Pecuniary jurisdiction determines the court’s authority based on the monetary value of the dispute itself. In the famous case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court established principles regarding court jurisdiction and the validity of judicial decrees, the court held that decrees passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is nullity, and its invalidity can be challenged at any stage, even during execution or in collateral proceedings.
The judgement further provided exceptions under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act and provided an objection to jurisdiction based on valuation should not be entertained by an appellate court unless, the objection was raised in the court of first instance at or before the settlement of issues, or the over-valuation or under-valuation has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on its merits.
Section 15 of the CPC mandates that a suit should be filed in the court of the lowest grade that has the authority to handle the case based on its pecuniary value. The valuation of the suit is typically provided by the plaintiff, the court however reserves the right to adjust such valuation if it finds discrepancies.
Territorial Jurisdiction and Provisions
This refers to the authority of a court to hear cases within specific geographical boundaries. This means that a court can try cases that fall within its defined area, often determined by where the incident happened or where the property is located. It may also be based on where the defendant lives, works, or carries on business. The idea of territorial jurisdiction ensures that lawsuits are filed in the correct location where events occurred or parties reside, this prevents overreach beyond physical limits and is essential for determining which state or country’s laws apply, covering everything from local disputes to international crimes. Territorial jurisdiction is a court’s authority to preside over legal proceedings in a geographical area.
It is the scope of a federal and state court’s power and is determined by governing laws and regulations of the area. Factors that are often considered when granting a court territorial jurisdiction over a case include, where the cause of action took place, the residency of the parties involved, or the nature of the dispute. In a recent landmark judgement of Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of contracts involving immovable property must be generally filed where the property is located, unless relief can be achieved through personal obedience within another court’s jurisdiction thereby ensuring effective remedies.
Territorial jurisdiction may be further classified into two distinct kinds; Intra-territorial jurisdiction which defines a court’s authority to hear and try cases, or deals with crimes or issues that falls within the national borders as provided under section 3 of the IPC, and Extra-territorial jurisdiction refers to the authority of court’s to deals with crimes or actions that are outside its national borders, often involving its citizens or national interests as provided under section 3 & 4 of the Indian Penal Code.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
This refers to a court’s authority to hear, entertain and decide cases based on the type of dispute or nature of the claim. The court may have subject matter jurisdiction which is either limited or general in nature depending on whether the court is a state court or a specialized court. The requirement to issue valid judgement and how federal vs state courts divide cases. This may be defined as the division of courts based on the nature complaints which they can hear and try either family, bankruptcy, federal crimes or small claims.
It may be further classified under two categories including limited or general jurisdiction; where general subject-matter jurisdiction applies to State Courts, implying that a State court can hear and try most types of cases including family disputes, contracts and torts. Whereas, limited subject-matter jurisdiction applies to specialized courts, meaning that such court is barred to hear, entertain and try specific matters such courts are either Family courts, Probate Courts, Federal Bankruptcy Courts etc.
A judgement arising from any court is only valid when the court issuing such judgement has the subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter on which it has issued such judgement or decree. In a landmark judgement of Hoday Nath Roy v. Akhil Chandra Roy, it was held that subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a specific nature of case and another was the 1998 case of Shankar Narayanan Potti v. K. Sreedevi where the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that civil courts have general jurisdiction under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code but can be expressly or impliedly barred by specific legislation.
Conclusion
The concept of jurisdiction is essential in understanding the judicial system and the manner in which justice is delivered as it defines a court’s legitimate power over people, subject matter, location and money, to hear and decide cases preventing chaos, ensuring fairness by matching cases to the appropriate court, upholding the rule of law, and building public trust by providing orderly, efficient, and accountable justice within defined boundaries which is thus, essential for effective dispute resolution and upholding constitutional rights and this allows courts to develop expertise for better judgements.
