Judiciary

"People violating laws have to be punished to ensure proper implementation of laws. It is also important that disputes between people are resolved peacefully. The judiciary is needed to discharge these functions. In this chapter, we will learn about the judiciary in India."

1.0What is The Role of Judiciary?

Courts take decisions on a very large number of issues. They can decide that no teacher can beat a student, or about the sharing of river waters between states, or they can punish people for particular crimes. Broadly speaking, the work that the judiciary does can be divided into the following:

Dispute Resolution

The judicial system provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between citizens, between citizens and the government, between two state governments and between the centre and state governments.

Judicial Review

As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary also has the power to strike down particular laws passed by the Parliament if it believes that these are a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is called judicial review.

Upholding the Law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights

Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court if they believe that their Fundamental Rights have been violated.

• For example, Hakim Sheikh, an agricultural labourer who fell from a running train and injured himself and whose condition got worse because several hospitals refused to admit him.
• On hearing his case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 which provides every citizen the Fundamental Right to Life also includes the Right to Health.
• It, therefore, directed the West Bengal government to pay him compensation for the loss suffered as well as to come up with a blueprint for primary health care with particular reference to treatment of patients during an emergency [Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity vs State of West Bengal (1996)].

High Court of Madras

2.0What is An Independent Judiciary?

• We often hear of rich and powerful people in India trying to influence the judicial process.
• Whereas the politician has the power to appoint and dismiss a judge from his office.
• The control that the politician holds over the judge does not allow for the judge to take an independent decision.
• This lack of independence would force the judge to make all judgments in favour of the politician.
• In both above cases who will protect the interest of a common people.
• The Indian Constitution protects against this kind of situation by providing for the independence of the judiciary.
• One aspect of this independence is the 'separation of powers'.
• Separation of power is a key feature of the Constitution. It means that other branches of government - the legislature and the executive - cannot interfere in the work of the judiciary. The courts are not under the government and do not act on their behalf.
• For the above separation to work well, it is also crucial that all judges in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court are appointed with very little interference from these other branches of government. Once appointed to this office, it is also very difficult to remove a judge.
• It is the independence of the judiciary that allows the courts to play a central role in ensuring that there is no misuse of power by the legislature and the executive. It also plays a crucial role in protecting the Fundamental Rights of citizens because anyone can approach the courts if they believe that their rights have been violated.

3.0Structure of Courts in India

• There are three different levels of courts in our country. There are several courts at the lower level while there is only one at the apex level.
• The courts that most people interact with are what are called subordinate or district courts.
• These are usually at the district or Tehsil level or in towns and they hear many kinds of cases.
• Each state is divided into districts that are presided over by a District Judge.
• Each state has a High Court which is the highest court of that state.
• At the top is the Supreme Court that is in New Delhi and is presided over by the Chief Justice of India.
• The decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts in India.
• In India, we have an integrated judicial system, meaning that the decisions made by higher courts are binding on the lower courts.
• Another way to understand this integration is through the appellate system that exists in India. This means that a person can appeal to a higher court if they believe that the judgment passed by the lower court is not just.

4.0Case Study - State (Delhi Administration) vs Laxman Kumar and Others (1985)

• In February 1980, Laxman Kumar married 20-year-old Sudha Goel and they lived in a flat in Delhi with Laxman's brothers and their families.
• On 2 December 1980 Sudha died in hospital due to burns. Her family filed a case in court. When this case was heard in the Trial Court, four of her neighbours were called in as witnesses. They stated that on the night of December 1, they had heard Sudha scream and had forced their way into Laxman's flat.
• There they saw Sudha standing with her sari in flames. They extinguished the fire by wrapping Sudha in a gunny bag and a blanket. Sudha told them that her mother-in law Shakuntala had poured kerosene oil on her and that her husband Laxman had lit the fire.
• During the trial members of Sudha's family and a neighbour Satyarani, an active member of the women's movement. stated that Sudha had been subjected to torture by her in-laws and that they were demanding more cash, a scooter, and a fridge on the birth of the first child.

• As part of their defence, Laxman and his mother stated that Sudha's sari had accidentally caught fire while she was heating milk.
• Based on this and other evidence, the Trial Court convicted Laxman, his mother Shakuntala and his brother-in-law Subash Chandra and sentenced all three of them to death.
• In November 1983, the three accused went to the High Court to appeal against this verdict of the Trial Court. The High Court, after hearing the arguments of all the lawyers, decided that Sudha had died due to an accidental fire caused by the kerosene stove. Laxman, Shakuntala and Subash Chandra were acquitted.
• In the 1980s, women's groups across the country spoke out against 'dowry deaths.' They protested the failure of courts to bring these cases to justice.
• The above High Court judgment deeply troubled women and they held demonstrations and filed a separate appeal against this High Court decision in the Supreme Court through the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers.
• In 1985, the Supreme Court heard this appeal against the acquittal of Laxman and the two members of his family.
• The Supreme Court heard the arguments of the lawyers and reached a decision that was different from that of the High Court.
• They found Laxman and his mother guilty but acquitted the brother-in-law Subash because they did not have enough evidence against him. The Supreme Court decided to send the accused to prison for life.

5.0Different Branches of Legal System

The above case of the dowry death falls within what is considered a 'crime against society' and is a violation of criminal law. In addition to criminal law, the legal system also deals with civil law cases.

6.0Lok Adalats and Public Interest Litigation

• In principle, all citizens of India can access the courts in this country. This implies that every citizen has a right to justice through the courts.
• As you read earlier, the courts play a very significant role in protecting our Fundamental Rights. If any citizen believes that their rights are being violated, then they can approach the court for justice to be done.
• While the courts are available for all, in reality access to courts has always been difficult for a vast majority of the poor in India.
• Legal procedures involve a lot of money and paperwork as well as take up a lot of time.
• For a poor person who cannot read and whose family depends on a daily wage, the idea of going to court to get justice often seems remote.
• Another issue that affects the common person's access to justice is the inordinately long number of years that courts take to hear a case.
• The phrase 'justice delayed is justice denied' is often used to characterise this extended time period that courts take.

Number of Judges in India

• A new arrangement has been introduced for providing speedy and affordable justice to the poor.
• Lok Adalats and Public Interest Litigation are addressed to eliminate the delay in imparting justice.
• The Lok Adalats speed up the clearance of pending cases and resolve cases that have not yet gone to the Courts.
• The Supreme Court in the early 1980s devised a mechanism of Public Interest Litigation or PIL to increase access to justice.
• It allowed any individual or organisation to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were being violated.
• The legal process was greatly simplified and even a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL.
• In the early years, PIL was used to secure justice on a large number of issues such as rescuing bonded labourers from inhuman work conditions; and securing the release of prisoners in Bihar who had been kept in jail even after their punishment term was complete.
• However, there are also court judgments that people believe work against the best interests of the common person.
• For example, activists who work on issues concerning the right to shelter and housing for the poor believe that the recent judgments on evictions are a far cry from earlier judgments.
• While recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city, earlier judgments (like the 1985 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation) had tried to protect the livelihoods of slum dwellers.

The sweep of the Right to Life, conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. 'Life' means something more than mere animal existence. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the Right to Life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. That the eviction of a person from a pavement or slum will inevitably lead to the deprivation of his means of livelihood, is a proposition which does not have to be established in each individual case .... In the present case that facts constituting empirical evidence justify the conclusion that the petitioners live in slums and on pavements because they have small jobs to nurse in the city and for them there is nowhere else to live. They choose a pavement or a slum in the vicinity of their place of work and to loose the pavement or the slum is to loose the job. The conclusion therefore is that the eviction of the petitioners will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of life.

However, despite this there is no denying that the judiciary has played a crucial role in democratic India, serving as a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature as well as in protecting the Fundamental Rights of citizens. The members of the Constituent Assembly had quite correctly envisioned a system of courts with an independent judiciary as a key feature of our democracy.

7.0Glossary

1. Acquit - This refers to the court declaring that a person is not guilty of the crime which he/she was tried for by the court.
2. To Appeal - In the context of this chapter this refers to a petition filed before a higher court to hear a case that has already been decided by a lower court.
3. Compensation - In the context of this chapter this refers to money given to make amends for an injury or a loss.
4. Eviction - In the context of this chapter this refers to the removal of persons from land/homes that they are currently living in.
5. Violation - In the context of this chapter, it refers both to the act of breaking a law as well as to the breach or infringement of Fundamental Rights.

8.0Mind Map