Skip to main content

Characteristics of Indian Legal System

 Characteristics of Indian Legal System

The Constitution of India provides for a single integrated judicial system with Supreme Court at the apex, High Courts at the middle (state level) and the District Courts at the local level. It also provides for an independent and powerful judicial system.

The following are the basic characteristics of the Indian Legal System:

1. Single and integrated Judicial System:

The constitution establishes a single integrated judicial system for the whole of India.  The Supreme Court is the highest court of the country followed by High Courts and District Courts. The Supreme Court runs and controls the judicial administration of India. All courts of India form links of a single integrated judicial system.

2. Independence of Judiciary

The Constitution makes Judiciary truly independent with provisions like:

  • Appointment of Judges by the President.
  • High qualifications for appointment of judges.
  • Independent establishment for Judiciary.
  • Adequate powers and functional autonomy for the Judiciary.
3. Judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution:

The Indian Constitution is a written document. The right to interpret and clarify the Constitution has been given to the Supreme Court. It's the final interpreter of Constitutional provisions.

4. Judicial Review:

The Judiciary acts as the interpreter and protector of the Constitution. It is the guardian of the fundamental rights and freedom of people. To perform this role, it exercises the power of Judicial Review. The Supreme Court has the power to determine the Constitutional validity of all laws.

5. High Court for each state as well as provision of Joint High Courts:

The Constitution lays down that there is to be a High Court for each state. However, two or more states can by mutual consent have a common High Court.

Presently, there are 25 High Courts in India.

6. Supreme Court as arbitrator of legal disputes between Union and States:

Constitution gives to Supreme Court the jurisdiction in all cases of disputes:

  • between Centre and one or more states;
  • between the centre and any state(s) on one side and one or more states on the other side;
  • and between two or more states.
7. Guardian of Fundamental Rights
Indian Judiciary acts as guardian of fundamental rights and freedom of people. People have the right to Constitutional remedies under which they can seek protection from courts for the prevention of violation of their rights. A person can approach the Supreme Court under Art. 32 and the High Court under Art. 226 for protection of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court and the High Court can issue the writs(Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Prohibition, Certiorari) to prevent such violation.

8. Separation of Judiciary from Executive:
The Constitution provides for separation between the Judiciary and the other two organs of the Government. Judiciary acts as a supervising authority for the Legislature and Executive.
Judiciary is not subordinate to any other organ of Government. The Judicial administration in India is organised and run in accordance with the rules laid down by the Supreme Court.

9. Judicial Activism:
The Indian Judicial System has been becoming more and more active. The Supreme Court has been coming out with Judicial decisions and directives aimed at the protection of public interest and human rights. PIL system has been picking up and Lok Adalats have been flourishing.

10. Public Interest Litigation System:
Under this system, Courts of law in India can initiate and enforce action for securing any significant public or general interest which is being adversely affected or is likely to be, by the action of any agency-public or private.
The seeds of PIL were sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai.
Under PIL, any citizen or a group of citizens or a voluntary organisation or even a court can bring to notice any case demanding action for protecting or satisfying a public interest.
The concept of PIL is enshrined in Art. 39A of the Constitution.


These were the basic features of Indian Judicial System. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Theft, Robbery and Dacoity

Theft v. Robbery v. Dacoity ( चोरी , लूट और डकैती ) Theft, robbery and dacoity are terms that are generally used interchangeably and assumed as a synonym to one-another. But in law, they are not the same. They have different meaning and distinct essential characteristics. Let’s analyze each of them. 1.       1.  Theft ( चोरी) : Theft is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.   (Image source: https://www.gps-securitygroup.com/how-to-prevent-theft-and-shoplifting-at-your-retail-store/) Theft is committed when somebody takes out some movable property (i.e. which can be moved e.g. car, money, animals etc.) out of the possession of the owner without his consent and with a dishonest intension to steal it. The victim may or may not be present at the site of theft. Illustration : Suppose a friend of yours comes to your house when you are not there. He sees a gold ring lying on a table. He hides it with the intension of telling you ...
1 comment
Read more

Doctrines under Art. 13 of the Indian Constitution

  Doctrines under Art. 13 of the Indian Constitution Art. 13(1) of the Indian constitution constitutes two doctrines so as to protect the existence of Fundamental Rights. Fundamental rights are the most precious gifts that our constitution offers to its citizens. They are above every other law(though with reasonable restrictions). To protect the existence and subsistence of these fundamental rights, two doctrines are originated under Art 13(1) of the Constitution. Art. 13(1) of the Constitution reads as : ‘ All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.’   Thus, art. 13 (1) talks about pre-constitutional laws. As per Art. 13 (1), all the laws before the enactment of the constitution (pre-constitution laws) that are not in consistence with the Fundamental Rights shall be adjudicated void. ...
6 comments
Read more