Indian Judicial system

Supreme Court SC

High Court HC

District Court (additional, joint, assistant ; Subordinate judge court; Munsiff court; city civil courts)

Sessions court (additional, assistant; Chief judicial magistrate; Judicial magistrate, Metropolitan magistrate )

Civil Court

Quasi-Judicial bodies

Tribunals

Armed forces Tribunals

Human Rights court in every district by State[established under Protection of Human Rights Act 1993]

Lok Adalats under LSA Act 1987

Permanent Lok Adalats under LSA Act 1987

Consumer Courts - quasi judicial

Family Courts by State Govt under Family Courts Act 1984

Gram Nyayalayas by State Govt under Gram Nyayalaya Act 2008

Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalats evolved by National Commission for Women

Court Martial

Military Courts

Fast Track Courts FTC by State Govt

Industrial Courts and Labour courts

Special Courts

Types of Cases and Laws

Civil

Criminal

Constitutional

Preventive Detention cases

Taxation laws

Writs

Taken from English law

Habeaus corpus	To have the body of	Aggrieved person	Issued to Public authorities and private individuals
Mandamus	We command	Aggrieved person	Issued to public bodies, corporation, inferior court, tribunal, Govt Mandamus can't be issued to Chief Justice of HC, President, Governor, when duty is discretionary, to enforce a contractual obligation, to enforce a dept instruction that don’t have statutory f rce, private individual [NOTE: No Speaker implies that can be issued]
Prohibition	To forbid Dont proceed	Aggrieved person	Issued to Judicial/Quasi-Judicial authorities but not to administrative authorities (since their proceedings are not of judicial nature), legislative bodies, private. Preventive Issued on grounds of Exceeding jurisdiction/ lack of jurisdiction to transfer the case/squash the order
Certiorari	To be informed/certified U don’t proceed, I will take it OR U squash order	Aggrieved person	Issued to Judicial/Quasi-Judicial/administrative authorities but not to legislative bodies, private Preventive and Curative Issued on the grounds of exceeding/lack of jurisdiction or error of law
Quo-warranty	By what authority	Any one	Issued to Substantive Public Office of permanent character created by Statute or Constitution. Not to ministerial office and private offices To enquire into legality of claim to public office

HC can issues writs even outside of its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises in its jurisdiction
HC may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction over writ cases as under Article 226, HC Writ power is discretionary
The Supreme Court can issue writ only in case of violation of any of the fundamental rights contained in Part-III of the constitution, while the High Courts can issue writs not only in case of violation of fundamental rights but also in case of violation of any legal rights of the citizens
Note

Mandamus cannot be issued to Chief Justice of High Court acting in Judicial capacity

Judges removal

SC/HC Judges removal process is mentioned in Article 124(4) of the Constitution and is described/detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968.

As per constitution,

Judge of SC/HC can be removed by President on the recommendation of Parliament
Grounds: Proved misbehavior or incapacity

Judges Enquiries Act 1968 deals with the removal of SC/HC judges

Speaker/Chairman of House may admit or refuse to admit the motion
If the motion is admitted, a three-member committee is set up to investigate the allegations. The committee is made up of a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of any High Court, and a ‘distinguished jurist’ nominated by Speaker/Chairman
…..Finally, President passes the order to remove Judge [Presidential Order]
Removal procedure not mentioned in the constitution

Even if SC recommends for removal of judge to President, President cannot take an executive action. Judge impeachment is an legislative action

Judicial Review

Articles - 13, 32, 131-135, 143, 145, 226, 246, 256

Decision of anti-defection law by presiding officer is subjected to judicial review on the ground of malafide, perverse

Court held that President officer while deciding question under anti defection functions like a tribunal. Hence, like other tribunals, it is subjected to judicial review
However, Courts cannot question the power of Presiding officer in deciding anti-defection. Cannot direct speaker to take a decision
Review only after decision and in 2020, SC held that specific time frame can be set to take decision by Speaker

Decision of Speaker to classify a bill as Money bill or not is subjected to judicial review within the definition of Article 110

[SC said this because it is procedural irregularity]

All 3 types of emergency are subjected to Judicial Review

Proclamation of national emergency is subjected to judicial review on the ground of malafide or declaration based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts or is absurd or perverse

President and Judiciary

Presidents ordinance making power can be challenged on the ground of malafide

Intentionally, President prorogues a house to issue ordinance

Pardoning power of President is subjected to judicial review on the grounds of irrational, arbitrary and discrimination
President decision to dissolve Loksabha cannot be challenged in the court of law

However, President decision to dissolve State assembly in case of President Rule is subjected to Judicial review

President is not bound by the advice of SC in case of

President seeks advise of SC in case of any law/bill
President seeking advice of SC in case of pre-constitutional treaties, acts etc.

Recommendation of EC is binding on President in case of disqualification of parliament members w.r.t Representation of People Act 1951
Recommendation of enquiry committee to remove UPSC chairman is binding on President
President's active application of mind is necessary for decisions under Article 254(2) and is subjected to judicial review

Article 254(2) provides that In case of s ubjects of concurrent list, if a State law receives presidential assent after due consideration, then it can apply in contravention to the Central law in that particular State

Terms

Legal entities

In common law jurisprudence, there are two types of persons —

Natural persons or human beings and
Artificial persons, which are also known as juristic persons, juridical entity or a legal person other than a natural person

Legal or juristic persons are created by law and recognised as a legal entity, having distinct identity, legal personality and besides duties and rights.
They include private business firm or entity, non-governmental or government organisations, trusts and societies, besides others
July 2018, Uttarakhand High court declared entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic as legal entities
Mar 2020, HC declared Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh as a Living entity
India's first legal human status – Ganga and Yamuna river – on Mar 20<
- It implies that whenever you are harming the river, it is being referred as harming the human person and the same punishment will be awarded
Central and State Govts are also legal e ntities

Compoundable vs non-compoundable

Compoundable offence is less serious in nature and they mostly affects private persons. They can be compromised by the victim and offender, with or without the permission of court. Under compoundable offence, upon a compromise, the offender is acquitted without any trial.
Non compoundable offence is serious in nature. Under this a private party as well as the society are affected. No compromise is allowed under this type of offence. Even court does not has the authority and power to compound such offence. Under the non-compoundable offence, full trial is held which ends with the acquittal or conviction of offender based on the evidence given.

Legal right vs Fundamental right

Fundamental right is so basic that it cannot be denied by State and are enforceable by SC and HC. Even the law sought to amend fundamental rights will become unconstitutional and unenforceable (if it effects basic structure of constitution)
Legal right is the right guaranteed by the act of legislature
Ex: Right to property - Initially a fundamental right and now a legal right/constitutional right

If it is a fundamental right, even state cannot acquire property of a person forcefully in any means( even by enacting a law)
If it is a legal right, state can acquire property even forcefully that it can enact a law to acquire and since it is law, it is legal

Review petition

A review petition can be filed by the parties aggrieved by the decisions of Supreme Court/High Court

Curative petition

A curative petition is normally allowed only on the limited grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and circumstances suggesting possible bias on the part of judges
Curative - to prevent abuse of process as well as to cure miscarriage of justice
where a question was raised that whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final order/judgment of the Supreme court after dismissal of review petition.

Mercy petition

When a person has lost all the remedies available to him/her under all the prevailing laws as well as under the Constitutional remedies, he may file a mercy petition before the President of India under Article 72 or Governor under Article 161
Petition will be treated on mercy but not on the legality of the case

Access to Justice Project for Marginalized Persons

It is being implemented by Ministry of Law and Justice and United Nation Development Programme (UNDP).
Pro bono legal services and Nyaya Mitra scheme and Tele law initiative are the sub schemes under this project

Nyaya Mitra scheme

It aims to reduce pendency of cases across selected districts, with a special focus on those pending for more than 10 years.
This scheme would play a pivotal role in assisting litigants who are suffering due to delay in investigation or trial, by actively identifying such cases through the National Judicial Data Grid, providing legal advice and connecting litigants to government agencies and civil society organizations.
This initiative would be launched in 227 districts

Pro bono legal services

It is a web-based initiative which can be accessed through the website www.doj.gov.in.
Litigants who cannot afford legal services can apply for legal aid and advice from pro bono lawyers.
The idea behind this online initiative is to promote the concept of legal aid in an institutionalized manner and ensure that those lawyers who volunteer for such services are duly recognized.

Tele-Law initiative

Union Ministry of Law and Justice has partnered with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
To provide legal aid services through its Common Service Centres (CSC) at the Panchayat level across India
It will enable people to seek legal advice from lawyers through video conferencing.
Law school clinics, District Legal Service Authorities, voluntary service providers and NGOs working on legal aid can also be connected through the CSCs in order to strengthen access to justice for the marginalized.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) will also provide a panel of lawyers from State capitals
Every CSC will engage a Para Legal Volunteer (PLV), who will be the first point of contact for the rural citizens

Para Legal Volunteers

They will be the first point of contact for the rural citizens and will help them in understanding the legal issues, explain the advice given by lawyers and assist in further action required.
Women PLVs will be encouraged and trained under the Scheme. The aim is to promote women entrepreneurship and empowerment and ensure women participation

Section 124A

Section 124A deals with Sedition

Sedition is defined as “disaffection” against the ernment, or bringing it into “hatred or contempt
Invoked when there is an imminent threat to public order and incitement to take up arms or resort to violence
It is punishable with three years in prison or a life term and is a non-bailable offence
It was a colonial law directed against strong criticism of the British administration.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar 1962, SC held that

only a “violent re olution against the government attracts the charge of sedition.
A free expression of disapprobation against the ruling government's action with an intention to better the condition of the people is not treason

It has to be against the state, not against the government and also there has to be a direct incitement to violence.

Cons

It defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens
Process of having to prove innocence of offence is itself is a punishment

The problem is not with the section, but with its abuse
NCRB data shows, b/w 2016-19, no. of cases of sedition under Section 124A increased by 160%, while the rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33.3% in 2016.
Need to have relook of the section
After all, when the situation changes, the statute calls for a change as law cannot afford to remain static

Judiciary - General