INDIAN JUDICIARY: A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW
Abstract:
The objective of the Indian Constitution is securing justice for all its citizens apart from
securing liberty, equality and fraternity. The Apex Court of India plays a pivotal role in the
Indian Democracy by keeping the spirit of justice alive amongst its citizens. Justice which is
considered as the soul of a democratic society must be administered without any kind of fear
or favour. Independent, impartial and intelligent judiciary is the basic ingredient needed for
the success of a democracy.
“All the rights secured to the citizens under the constitution are worth nothing, and a mere
bubble, except guaranteed to them by a virtuous judiciary”-Andrew Jackson
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of law in the country; it’s jurisdiction and
decisions supersede all other legal institutions of India. Article 124 of the Indian Constitution
provides for the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court. Articles 131-140
divides the powers of the Supreme court into the following three categories:
(1)- Original Jurisdiction
(2)- Appellate Jurisdiction
(3)- Advisory Jurisdiction
Under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India exercises Original
Jurisdiction in any dispute arising between Union and one or more States and between two or
more states. However, such a dispute must involve a question of law or fact on which the
existence of legal rights depends. As per the Appellate Jurisdiction (under articles 133 and
134), an appeal may lie to the Supreme Court of India in any civil and criminal proceedings
of a High court. The advisory function of the Supreme Court is also of pivotal importance. As
per this jurisdiction, in case of any ambiguity regarding the interpretation of a clause of the
constitution or if certain constitutional issue arises, the President can refer the same to the
Supreme Court for its expert opinion. Under Article 142, the Apex court has the
constitutional mandate to pass such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any
case before it. However, it seems to be a matter of academic discussion as to who really
controls the process of justice. The government by providing funds for the smooth
functioning of the courts controls their capacity indirectly, thus controlling the process of
justice inadvertently. It also controls the process of trial through its control of funding. The
independence of the Indian Judiciary can also be also be a matter of debate. 1The Indian
Constitution does not follow the doctrine of separation of powers, but it has been reiterated in
many cases that the independence of the judiciary is a basic part of the constitution, however
it’s practical value still remains debatable. A very alarming situation that the Indian judiciary
faces is the burgeoning arrear of pending cases, not only in the lower courts, but also with the
Supreme Court. A delay in disposal of cases frustrates the very purpose of justice as
explained in the famous saying - “Justice delayed is justice denied”. The very fact that High
Courts and Supreme Court have extended their attention to virtually all kinds of matters
related to common people have led leading jurists describe the Supreme Court as an “All
India Miscellaneous Court”. Thus, lots of improvements are required in the functioning of the
courts to relieve the courts of their burden. In the 21 st century, the social-evil of corruption
has plagued every single institution of our country. This practice of corruption, bribery and
nepotism rampant in the judicial system sacrifices the ideal of justice for a petty amount of
money, wherein a common man is forced to resort to these evil practices just to achieve his
fundamental right to justice. Thus, the Anti-Corruption laws should be made more stringent
so as to punish those who act as stumbling blocks in an individual’s path to justice and social
security. Despite these few bad apples, the Indian Judicial system has actively intervened in
cases wherein the question of ‘Value of Human Life’ and ‘Human Dignity’ arose. This is
evidently established from M.C Mehta v. Union of India 2, wherein the Supreme Court
applied the principle of absolute liability as distinct from the English principle of strict
liability as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher 3. The court found that strict liability provided
corporations with several defenses to avoid liability, however, absolute liability provides
them with no defense and constitutes a part of the fundamental Right to Life as enshrined in
Article 21 of the constitution. Apart from this, Judicial Activism has immensely contributed
towards strengthening the rights of the citizens. Needless to emphasize that judiciary is a vital
organ of any democratic setup responsible for providing fair and expeditious justice to all.
However, lots of structural reforms are required to improve the working standard of the
judiciary. In this context, it is important to note that whenever the issue of structural reforms
in the judiciary is raised, the focus is only concerned to the higher courts, that is High Courts
1
Arpit Richhariya, “Is the Indian judiciary independent anymore?”, Jurist (August 20,2020, 14:40 p.m),
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/05/arpit-richhariya-indian-judiciary-independence/
2
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India A.I.R, 1998 SC 186.
3
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
and the Supreme Courts. However, unless the functioning of courts at the grassroot level is
improved, the actual benefits of reforms will not reach the common people. By only
improving the working conditions of higher courts, the delay in justice cannot be curtailed.
The pendency in higher courts is always given some thoughts, but the burden of the lower
courts is never even considered despite the fact that more than 100 million cases are pending
in the lower courts which adversely effects the trust of the common man in the judicial
system. It does not mean that reforms at higher level are not needed, but ignoring the lower
courts shall be an imprudent way of reforms.
Thus, in the nutshell, Indian Judiciary has always been an active participant in safeguarding
the rights of its citizens. However, there is an immediate need of reforms in the judicial sector
so as to make it competent and suitable to serve the needs of our democratic society.
References:
1- Arpit Richhariya, “Is the Indian judiciary independent anymore?”, Jurist (August
20,2020, 14:40 p.m), https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/05/arpit-richhariya-
indian-judiciary-independence/
2- Inderjit Badhwar, “Indian Judiciary: Future Shock”, Indian Legal (August
19,2020,13:44 p.m), https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/indian-
judiciary-future-shock
3- Ruma Pal & Arghya Senugupta, “70 years of Indian Judiciary | Opinion : The Courts
must reform so that they can preserve—Seven Must Dos”, Outlook (August 20,2020,
10:00 a.m), https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-70-years-of-
indian-judiciary-opinion-the-courts-must-reform-so-that-they-can-preserve-seven-
must-dos/302680
