In India, the judiciary occupies an important place. The constitution visualizes an independent judiciary to safeguard the rights of citizens. In a democratic polity, the independent judiciary is a sine qua non to the effective functioning of the system. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. The judiciary has an important role to play in protecting the citizen against the arbitrary exercise of power by administration. In this unit, we shall be discussing the features of judicial system in India, the scope and methods of judicial control over administration, the limitations of judicial administration and various other judicial systems in vogue.
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN INDIA
As mentioned in the introduction of this unit, Indian Constitution envisages an independent judiciary. There is a separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. The judiciary, which interprets the constitutional meaning of law and legality of executive actions, must have a separate existence. Lord Bryce has said that there is no better test of the excellence of a government than the efficiency and independence of its judicial system. Indian constitution incorporated many provisions to ensure the independence of judiciary. Though the executive appoints the judges of the highest courts, that is, the Supreme Court and High Courts, their tenure is kept beyond the purview of the executive. Even in appointing the judges, the executive has to follow certain guidelines. Once they are appointed they are not subject to any executive control in the discharge of their functions. This is done to ensure that the judgments of courts are impartial and fair. In Indian federation, the courts also have an important role to play in adjudicating the disputes between the Centre and States. Thus, the independence of the judiciary is one of the important features of the judicial system in India.
Another important feature of judicial system in India is the single unified judicial system prevailing in the country. The whole system of courts taken together is called the judiciary. Unlike.some other federations like the USA, Indian federation has a unified judicial system. If we compare legislative and executive system in our federation with the structure of judicial system, he find a difference. We have separate legislative and executive authorities for the Centre and the States and their functions are divided by the Constitution. But our judicial system is different. It runs like a pyramid from the subordinate courts and districts courts at local level to High Courts for every state to the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court occupies the highest position in the judicial hierarchy in India. It comprises of the Chief Justice and other judges appointed by the President of India. The Supreme Court has three areas of jurisdiction, namely, original, appellate and advisory. The original jurisdiction extends to (a) disputes between Government of India and one or more states, and (b) claims of infringement of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to four types of cases, that is, constitutional, civil, criminal and special leave. .In these types of cases under certain conditions appeals may be made from any State Hi& Court to the Supreme Court. The Court's advisory jurisdiction pertains to matters referred for the purposes of seeking advice. The President of India may refer a question of public importance for the advise of the Supreme Court.
The High Courts are in the second level of judiciary. Ordinarily every state has a High Court, but two or more states may also have one High Court. The High Court consists of a Chief Justice and some other judges appointed by the President of India. The High court of the states have three types of jurisdictions, that is, original, appellate and administrative. It has among its original jurisdiction the power to' issue warrants regarding the fundamental rights of citizens. It also has original jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases. It's appellate jurisdiction includes the authority to try appeals about civil and criminal cases from the lower courts. The administrative jurisdiction of High Courts relate to superintendence over the subordinate courts, The subordinate judiciary, that is, courts at the district level and below come into intimate contact with the people in the judicial field. The Governor in consultation with the High Court appoints the judges of the district courts. The Public Service Commission , conducts competitive examinaths for the selection of candidates for appointment in the State Judicial Service.
The above discussion on judicial system in India clearly shows that the whole judicial system is based on two important features namely independent judiciary and single unified judicial system.
Another important feature of judicial system in India is the single unified judicial system prevailing in the country. The whole system of courts taken together is called the judiciary. Unlike.some other federations like the USA, Indian federation has a unified judicial system. If we compare legislative and executive system in our federation with the structure of judicial system, he find a difference. We have separate legislative and executive authorities for the Centre and the States and their functions are divided by the Constitution. But our judicial system is different. It runs like a pyramid from the subordinate courts and districts courts at local level to High Courts for every state to the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court occupies the highest position in the judicial hierarchy in India. It comprises of the Chief Justice and other judges appointed by the President of India. The Supreme Court has three areas of jurisdiction, namely, original, appellate and advisory. The original jurisdiction extends to (a) disputes between Government of India and one or more states, and (b) claims of infringement of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to four types of cases, that is, constitutional, civil, criminal and special leave. .In these types of cases under certain conditions appeals may be made from any State Hi& Court to the Supreme Court. The Court's advisory jurisdiction pertains to matters referred for the purposes of seeking advice. The President of India may refer a question of public importance for the advise of the Supreme Court.
The High Courts are in the second level of judiciary. Ordinarily every state has a High Court, but two or more states may also have one High Court. The High Court consists of a Chief Justice and some other judges appointed by the President of India. The High court of the states have three types of jurisdictions, that is, original, appellate and administrative. It has among its original jurisdiction the power to' issue warrants regarding the fundamental rights of citizens. It also has original jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases. It's appellate jurisdiction includes the authority to try appeals about civil and criminal cases from the lower courts. The administrative jurisdiction of High Courts relate to superintendence over the subordinate courts, The subordinate judiciary, that is, courts at the district level and below come into intimate contact with the people in the judicial field. The Governor in consultation with the High Court appoints the judges of the district courts. The Public Service Commission , conducts competitive examinaths for the selection of candidates for appointment in the State Judicial Service.
The above discussion on judicial system in India clearly shows that the whole judicial system is based on two important features namely independent judiciary and single unified judicial system.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATION
In the context of ever-expanding activities of government and discretionary powers vested in the various administrative agencies and public officials, the need to protect and safeguard the citizen's rights assumes significance and priority. In developing societies where the state is playing an important role in development, judiciary has a special responsibility to ensure social justice to the underprivileged sections of the community.
However, it must be admitted that the courts can not interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope. Generally judicial intervention in administrative activities is confined to the following cases:
a) Lack of Jurisdiction: If any public official or administrative agency acts without or beyond hisher or its authority or jurisdiction the courts can declare such acts as ultra- vires. For instance, according to administrative rules and procedures, in all organizations, the competent authority is identified for taking decisions and actions. If any authority or person other than the competent authority takes action, the court's intervention can be sought under the provisions of lack of jurisdiction.
b) Error of Law: This category of cases arises when the official misconstrues the law and imposes upon the citizen obligations, which are absent in law. This is called misfeasance in legal terminology. The courts are empowered to set right such cases.
c) Error of Fact: this category of cases is a result of error in discovering cases and actions taken on basis of wrong assumptions. Any citizen adversely affected by error of judgment of public official can approach courts for redressal.
d) Error of Procedure: "due procedure" is the basis of governmental action in a democracy. Responsible government means a government by procedure. Procedure in administration ensures accountability, openness and justice. Public officials must act in accordance with the procedure laid down by law in the performance of the administrative activities. If the prescribed procedure is not followed the intervention of the courts can be sought and legality of administrative actions can be questioned.
e) Abuse of authority: if a public official exercises higher authority vindictively to harm a person or use authority for personal gain, court's intervention can be sought. In legal terms, it is called malfeasance. The courts can intervene to correct the malfeasance of administrative acts.
However, it must be admitted that the courts can not interfere in the administrative activities on their own accord even if such activities are arbitrary. They act only when their intervention is sought. Judicial intervention is restrictive in nature and limited in its scope. Generally judicial intervention in administrative activities is confined to the following cases:
a) Lack of Jurisdiction: If any public official or administrative agency acts without or beyond hisher or its authority or jurisdiction the courts can declare such acts as ultra- vires. For instance, according to administrative rules and procedures, in all organizations, the competent authority is identified for taking decisions and actions. If any authority or person other than the competent authority takes action, the court's intervention can be sought under the provisions of lack of jurisdiction.
b) Error of Law: This category of cases arises when the official misconstrues the law and imposes upon the citizen obligations, which are absent in law. This is called misfeasance in legal terminology. The courts are empowered to set right such cases.
c) Error of Fact: this category of cases is a result of error in discovering cases and actions taken on basis of wrong assumptions. Any citizen adversely affected by error of judgment of public official can approach courts for redressal.
d) Error of Procedure: "due procedure" is the basis of governmental action in a democracy. Responsible government means a government by procedure. Procedure in administration ensures accountability, openness and justice. Public officials must act in accordance with the procedure laid down by law in the performance of the administrative activities. If the prescribed procedure is not followed the intervention of the courts can be sought and legality of administrative actions can be questioned.
e) Abuse of authority: if a public official exercises higher authority vindictively to harm a person or use authority for personal gain, court's intervention can be sought. In legal terms, it is called malfeasance. The courts can intervene to correct the malfeasance of administrative acts.
FORMS OF JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATION
The forms and methods of judicial control over administration vary from country to country, depending upon the type of the constitution and the system of law. Broadly speaking, there are two systems of legal remedies against administrative encroachments on the rights af citizens. One is called the Rule of Law system and the other is called the Administrative Law system. The Rule of Law means that everybody, irrespective of social and cultural differences, whether an official or a private citizen is subject to the same law and the ordinary law of the land. The official cannot take shelter behind state sovereignty in committing mistakes in his official capacity. A.V. Dicey, the main exponent d Law system stated that the Rule of Law assumes equality of Rule of all before law and application of the same law to all. The rule of law system prevails in England and other Commonwealth countries including India. It is also prevalent in the USA and many other democratic counties. The administrative law system is based on the assumption of separate law and courts for dealing with administrative actions. This system prevails mainly in France. We have discussed in detail about this system in Unit 24 of this course. In the following paragraphs, we shall discuss some of the forms of judicial control over administration in India, under the Rule of Law system.
1. Judicial Review
The judicial review implies the power of the courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of administrative acts of officials and also the executive orders and the legislative enactments. This is very important method of judicial control. This doctrine prevails ln countries where Constitution is held supreme, for example, in U.S.A. India, Australia, etc.
In India, judicial review is restricted by certain provisions of the constitution as well as of Act declaring finality of administrative decisions in particular matters. However, it can be stated that the Legislature in India, being non-sovereign body cannot exclude judicial review in certain cases unless there is a provision to that effect in the Constitution.
Generally, the courts do not interfere with purely administrative action unless it is ultra-vires as regards its scope or form. Even in Britain, where judicial review is not applicable, the c6urts can use this system of controlling administrative actions within the scope of parliamentary statutes. In view of the parliament's sovereignty in Britain, many administrative acts and decisions are excluded from judicial view by the courts themselves under what is called judicial self-limitation. it must be noted that administrative actions can be challenged for want of jurisdiction. In the USA, judicial, review, at least in theory extends to the entire field of administrative action. However, in practice, the courts in the USA have, by self-denial, restricted their power in several ways. For instance, courts usually do not review certain type of decisions particularly those concerning administrative discretion. The power of the courts as regards judicial review, although not crystallized is potentially great.
The judicial review implies the power of the courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of administrative acts of officials and also the executive orders and the legislative enactments. This is very important method of judicial control. This doctrine prevails ln countries where Constitution is held supreme, for example, in U.S.A. India, Australia, etc.
In India, judicial review is restricted by certain provisions of the constitution as well as of Act declaring finality of administrative decisions in particular matters. However, it can be stated that the Legislature in India, being non-sovereign body cannot exclude judicial review in certain cases unless there is a provision to that effect in the Constitution.
Generally, the courts do not interfere with purely administrative action unless it is ultra-vires as regards its scope or form. Even in Britain, where judicial review is not applicable, the c6urts can use this system of controlling administrative actions within the scope of parliamentary statutes. In view of the parliament's sovereignty in Britain, many administrative acts and decisions are excluded from judicial view by the courts themselves under what is called judicial self-limitation. it must be noted that administrative actions can be challenged for want of jurisdiction. In the USA, judicial, review, at least in theory extends to the entire field of administrative action. However, in practice, the courts in the USA have, by self-denial, restricted their power in several ways. For instance, courts usually do not review certain type of decisions particularly those concerning administrative discretion. The power of the courts as regards judicial review, although not crystallized is potentially great.
2. Statutory Appeal
The statutes made by Parliament and State Assemblies itself provide that in a particular type of administrative action,'the aggrieved party will have a right of appeal to the courts or to a higher administrative tribunal. Sometimes, legislative enactment itself may provide for judicial intervention in certain matters.
The statutes made by Parliament and State Assemblies itself provide that in a particular type of administrative action,'the aggrieved party will have a right of appeal to the courts or to a higher administrative tribunal. Sometimes, legislative enactment itself may provide for judicial intervention in certain matters.
3. Suits Against the Government
There are several limitations, varying from country to country, as regards filing suits against the government for its contractual liability. The contractual liability of the Union and the State Governments is the same as that of an individual citizen under the ordinary law of contracts, subject however, to any statutory conditions of limits, which the Parliament can regulate under the constitution. The State is liable for the tortuous acts of its officials in respect of the non-sovereign functions only. In Britain, under the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, the State is liable for torts committed by its servants i.e., public officials, subject to some exceptions. In U.S.A, subject to a few exceptions, there is no statutory provision to sue the State in tort. On the other hand, the liability of the State for the wrongful acts of its officials is fully established.
There are several limitations, varying from country to country, as regards filing suits against the government for its contractual liability. The contractual liability of the Union and the State Governments is the same as that of an individual citizen under the ordinary law of contracts, subject however, to any statutory conditions of limits, which the Parliament can regulate under the constitution. The State is liable for the tortuous acts of its officials in respect of the non-sovereign functions only. In Britain, under the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, the State is liable for torts committed by its servants i.e., public officials, subject to some exceptions. In U.S.A, subject to a few exceptions, there is no statutory provision to sue the State in tort. On the other hand, the liability of the State for the wrongful acts of its officials is fully established.
4. Criminal and Civil Suits against Public Oflicials
The position regarding the public officials' personal liability in respect of acts done by them in their official capacity varies form country.to country. In India, civil proceedings can be instituted against a public official for anything done in his official capacity after giving two months notice. When criminal proceedings are to be instituted against an official for the acts done in his official capacity, previous sanctions of the Head of the State i.e., the President or the Govefnor is required. Some functionaries like the President and the Governor are immune from legal proceedings even in respect of their personal ac$. Ministers, however, do not enjoy such immunity. The Monarch in Britain and President infhe U.S.A. are also immune from legal liability.
The position regarding the public officials' personal liability in respect of acts done by them in their official capacity varies form country.to country. In India, civil proceedings can be instituted against a public official for anything done in his official capacity after giving two months notice. When criminal proceedings are to be instituted against an official for the acts done in his official capacity, previous sanctions of the Head of the State i.e., the President or the Govefnor is required. Some functionaries like the President and the Governor are immune from legal proceedings even in respect of their personal ac$. Ministers, however, do not enjoy such immunity. The Monarch in Britain and President infhe U.S.A. are also immune from legal liability.
5. Extraordinary Remedies
Apart from the methods of judicial control already discussed, there are the extraordinary remedies in the nature of writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus., Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. These are called extraordinary. remedies because the courts grant these writs except the writ of Habeas Corpus, in their discretion and as a matter of right and that too when no other adequate remedy is available. A writ is an order of the court enforcing compliance on the part of those against whom the writ is issued. In India, these writs are available under the provisions of the Constitution. While the Supreme,Court is empowered tu issue these writs or orders or directives only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the High Courts are empowered to issue these writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for other rights. In Britain, these are called Preregative Writs issued in the name of the King as the fountainhead of justice. In the 'U.S.A. these are provided for partly by common law and partly by statute. The writ of in junction is not specifically provided in the Constitution. However, it is issued by the
Indian courts.
We will discuss these writs now.
a) Habeas Corpus: Habeas Corpus literally means to have the body of. This writ is an order issued by the court against a person who has detained another to produce the latter before the court and submit to its orders. If it is found that the person in unlawfblly or illegally detained, he will be set free. A friend or a relation of the detained person may also apply for this writ on hisfher behalf. This writ is a great bulwark of individual freedom and can be described as the
cornerstone of personal liberty. This writ is granted as a matter of a right of prima facie, if it is established that the person is unlawfully detained. Its utility is, however restricted in India in view of the provision of Preventive Detention Act.
b) Mandamus: Mandamus literally means command. If a public official fails to perform an act which is a part of his public duty and thereby violates the right of an individual, he /she will be commanded to perform the act through this writ. From the standpoint of judicial control over administrative lapses, it is an effective writ. In India, this can also be issued to compel a court or judicial tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction.
c) Prohibition: It is a judicial writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, preventing it from usurping jurisdiction, which is not vested with it. While Mandamus commands activity, Prohibition commands inactivity. This writ can be issued only against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to prevent exercise of excess of jurisdiction by a subordinate court. As such its significance as a method of judicial control over administration is limited.
d) Certiorari: While Prohibition is preventive, Certiorari is both preventive and curative. It is a writ issued by a superior court for transferring the records of proceedings of a case from an inferior court or quasi-judicial authority to the superior court for determining the legality of the proceedings.
e) Quo Warranto: Literally, Quo Warranto means 'on what authority'. When any person acts in a 'public office' in which he/she is not entitled to act, the court by the issue of this writ, will enquire into the legality of the claim of the person to that office. If the said claim is not well founded, hetshe will be ousted from that office. It is, thus, a powerful instrument against the usurpation of 'public offices'. Besides the units, there is one more writ, namely the writ of Injunction. It is of two kinds, mandatory and preventive. Mandatory injunction resembles the writ of Mandamus while Preventive Injunction resembles the writ of Prohibition. Through this writ, a public official can be restrained from doing a thing which, if done would cause
irreparable damage to the rights of individuals. While Prohibition is a writ available against judicial authorities, Injunction is a writ, which is issued against executive officials.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation refers to a system of intervention of social action groups in making courts accessible to the deprived, poor and the victims of social oppression. Earlier the 'rule of standing' that means only the wronged person can seek the help of courts, came in the way of judiciary reaching the poor. The poor who are not aware and capable do not exist for the court purposes. The imaginative interpretation of judicial process by creative and socially conscious judges led to the system of PIL, which facilitated the social action groups and conscious individuals to enable the courts take cognisance of various forms of injustices done to the poor. In the Asiad Workers Case, Justice Bhagwati of Supreme Court who championed the PIL observed: "now for the first time the portals of the court are being thrown open to the poor and the introdden. The courts must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and
struggling masses of this country". In recent times, the courts are allowing representations and petitions from members of public through postcards, newspapers, editorials, letters to the editors and as writ petitions. Some of the PILs relate to environment conservation, rehabilitation of bonded labour, undertrials languishing in jails, atrocities on scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, women and other weaker sections, violation of civil liberties, police atrocities, etc. The courts have intervened in such cases on the initiatives of social activists and civil liberties groups. Judicial activism has thus certainly facilitated more access to justice to the poor.
LEGAL AID
The Constitution of India clearly envisages that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other liabilities. The fundamental entitlement of legal aid is concomitant right that arises out of Art. 14 of the Constitution which enjoins the state not to deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law. Many commissions made suggestions to provide legal aid to poor to eliminate the implicit bias towards the rich in our legal system. In response, the Government of India, constituted a High Powered Committee in 1980 under the chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the then Judge of Supreme Court to evolve a comprehensive scheme of legal aid. The Committee was reconstituted in May 1987 with Justice R.S. Pathak, Chief Justice of India, as Patron-in-Chief, and Justice R.N. Misra, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as its executive chairman. As a request to the Committee's work, the National Act that governs the system of legal aid to the poor in this country is the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, under which "Authorities" have been set up at national, state and sub-state levels. Under the Act there is a model scheme, for those citizens whose annual income from all sources does not exceed a certain limit are eligible for free legal aid. The limitation as to income is not applicable in case of disputes where one of the parties belongs to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, vimuktajatis, nomadic tribes or is a woman or a child.
The Legal Services Authorities have been set up in accordance with the provisions of the national law and respective State Regulations in most of the States. The Legal Services Authorities have been set up at the High Court and district levels and in most of the places at taluka levels also. The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee has been set up for dispensing legal aid in cases coming before the Supreme Court of India. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, the institution of Lok Adalat is provided at all levels (State, District and Taluk) for resolution of disputes through conciliatory methods. Such Adalat. are proving a successful alternative forum for resolution of disputes through conciliatory methods outside the regular courts, and very near to the clients or the people who need legal support, aid and speedy resolution of disputes.
Apart from the methods of judicial control already discussed, there are the extraordinary remedies in the nature of writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus., Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. These are called extraordinary. remedies because the courts grant these writs except the writ of Habeas Corpus, in their discretion and as a matter of right and that too when no other adequate remedy is available. A writ is an order of the court enforcing compliance on the part of those against whom the writ is issued. In India, these writs are available under the provisions of the Constitution. While the Supreme,Court is empowered tu issue these writs or orders or directives only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the High Courts are empowered to issue these writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for other rights. In Britain, these are called Preregative Writs issued in the name of the King as the fountainhead of justice. In the 'U.S.A. these are provided for partly by common law and partly by statute. The writ of in junction is not specifically provided in the Constitution. However, it is issued by the
Indian courts.
We will discuss these writs now.
a) Habeas Corpus: Habeas Corpus literally means to have the body of. This writ is an order issued by the court against a person who has detained another to produce the latter before the court and submit to its orders. If it is found that the person in unlawfblly or illegally detained, he will be set free. A friend or a relation of the detained person may also apply for this writ on hisfher behalf. This writ is a great bulwark of individual freedom and can be described as the
cornerstone of personal liberty. This writ is granted as a matter of a right of prima facie, if it is established that the person is unlawfully detained. Its utility is, however restricted in India in view of the provision of Preventive Detention Act.
b) Mandamus: Mandamus literally means command. If a public official fails to perform an act which is a part of his public duty and thereby violates the right of an individual, he /she will be commanded to perform the act through this writ. From the standpoint of judicial control over administrative lapses, it is an effective writ. In India, this can also be issued to compel a court or judicial tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction.
c) Prohibition: It is a judicial writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, preventing it from usurping jurisdiction, which is not vested with it. While Mandamus commands activity, Prohibition commands inactivity. This writ can be issued only against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to prevent exercise of excess of jurisdiction by a subordinate court. As such its significance as a method of judicial control over administration is limited.
d) Certiorari: While Prohibition is preventive, Certiorari is both preventive and curative. It is a writ issued by a superior court for transferring the records of proceedings of a case from an inferior court or quasi-judicial authority to the superior court for determining the legality of the proceedings.
e) Quo Warranto: Literally, Quo Warranto means 'on what authority'. When any person acts in a 'public office' in which he/she is not entitled to act, the court by the issue of this writ, will enquire into the legality of the claim of the person to that office. If the said claim is not well founded, hetshe will be ousted from that office. It is, thus, a powerful instrument against the usurpation of 'public offices'. Besides the units, there is one more writ, namely the writ of Injunction. It is of two kinds, mandatory and preventive. Mandatory injunction resembles the writ of Mandamus while Preventive Injunction resembles the writ of Prohibition. Through this writ, a public official can be restrained from doing a thing which, if done would cause
irreparable damage to the rights of individuals. While Prohibition is a writ available against judicial authorities, Injunction is a writ, which is issued against executive officials.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation refers to a system of intervention of social action groups in making courts accessible to the deprived, poor and the victims of social oppression. Earlier the 'rule of standing' that means only the wronged person can seek the help of courts, came in the way of judiciary reaching the poor. The poor who are not aware and capable do not exist for the court purposes. The imaginative interpretation of judicial process by creative and socially conscious judges led to the system of PIL, which facilitated the social action groups and conscious individuals to enable the courts take cognisance of various forms of injustices done to the poor. In the Asiad Workers Case, Justice Bhagwati of Supreme Court who championed the PIL observed: "now for the first time the portals of the court are being thrown open to the poor and the introdden. The courts must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and
struggling masses of this country". In recent times, the courts are allowing representations and petitions from members of public through postcards, newspapers, editorials, letters to the editors and as writ petitions. Some of the PILs relate to environment conservation, rehabilitation of bonded labour, undertrials languishing in jails, atrocities on scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, women and other weaker sections, violation of civil liberties, police atrocities, etc. The courts have intervened in such cases on the initiatives of social activists and civil liberties groups. Judicial activism has thus certainly facilitated more access to justice to the poor.
LEGAL AID
The Constitution of India clearly envisages that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other liabilities. The fundamental entitlement of legal aid is concomitant right that arises out of Art. 14 of the Constitution which enjoins the state not to deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law. Many commissions made suggestions to provide legal aid to poor to eliminate the implicit bias towards the rich in our legal system. In response, the Government of India, constituted a High Powered Committee in 1980 under the chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the then Judge of Supreme Court to evolve a comprehensive scheme of legal aid. The Committee was reconstituted in May 1987 with Justice R.S. Pathak, Chief Justice of India, as Patron-in-Chief, and Justice R.N. Misra, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as its executive chairman. As a request to the Committee's work, the National Act that governs the system of legal aid to the poor in this country is the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, under which "Authorities" have been set up at national, state and sub-state levels. Under the Act there is a model scheme, for those citizens whose annual income from all sources does not exceed a certain limit are eligible for free legal aid. The limitation as to income is not applicable in case of disputes where one of the parties belongs to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, vimuktajatis, nomadic tribes or is a woman or a child.
The Legal Services Authorities have been set up in accordance with the provisions of the national law and respective State Regulations in most of the States. The Legal Services Authorities have been set up at the High Court and district levels and in most of the places at taluka levels also. The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee has been set up for dispensing legal aid in cases coming before the Supreme Court of India. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, the institution of Lok Adalat is provided at all levels (State, District and Taluk) for resolution of disputes through conciliatory methods. Such Adalat. are proving a successful alternative forum for resolution of disputes through conciliatory methods outside the regular courts, and very near to the clients or the people who need legal support, aid and speedy resolution of disputes.
NYAYA PANCHAYATS
The Nyaya Panchayat system aims to take justice to the doorstep of rural people. Under the panchayati raj system attempts were made by many state governments to establish Nyaya Panchayats to decide civil and criminal disputes of bet nature. Different state laws provide for different kinds of jurisdiction of the courts. The members are appointed by the state government from the panel recommended by the village panchayats or block panchayats. The members appointed to the Nyaya Panchayat should be literate and should not hold any office nor should be active member of any political party.
The effective functioning af Nyaya Panchayats can facilitate the speedy settlement of many disputes at the village level itself. They provide for the speedy and summary disposal of cases. Structurally, the system has the advantages of easy accessibility, speedy settlement of disputes, openness, etc. But enough steps should be designed to protect these institutions from the influence of rural rich and vested interests.
The effective functioning af Nyaya Panchayats can facilitate the speedy settlement of many disputes at the village level itself. They provide for the speedy and summary disposal of cases. Structurally, the system has the advantages of easy accessibility, speedy settlement of disputes, openness, etc. But enough steps should be designed to protect these institutions from the influence of rural rich and vested interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment