Tag: evolution and structure of indian judiciary

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. The apex court in India is the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India. Consisting of the Chief Justice of India and 30 other judges, it has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

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. 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.

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. 

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 April 2001, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) initiated the public interest litigation (Civil) No. 196/2001, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Others – popularly known as the "right to food" case. The PUCL argued that Article 21 – "right to life" of the Indian Constitution when read together with Articles 39(a) and 47, makes the right to food a derived fundamental right which is enforceable by virtue of the constitutional remedy provided under Article 32 of the constitution. The PUCL argued that excess food stocks with the Food Corporation of India should be fed to hungry citizens. This included providing mid-day meals in primary schools. The scheme came into force with the supreme court order dated 28 November 2001, which required all government and government-assisted primary schools to provide cooked midday meals.

The right to food, and its variations, is a human right protecting the right for people to feed themselves in dignity, implying that sufficient food is available, that people have the means to access it, and that it adequately meets the individual's dietary needs. The right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.

Lok Adalats enable the people to settle their disputes speedily and in an efficient and enduring way. Since a decision of the Lok Adalat is based upon the consent of both the parties to the dispute, no appeal can be made by any party after the Lok Adalat has settled the dispute. The parties to the dispute also gain as the aggrieved party gets compensated and the other party gets relief from the botherations and delays that always characterize the judicial process.

In India we have the rule of law. Laws are applied equally to all persons and that a certain set of fixed procedures need to be followed when a law is violated. To enforce this rule of law, we have a judicial system that consists of the mechanism of courts that a citizen can approach when a law is violated. As an organ of the State, the judiciary plays a crucial role in the functioning of India’s democracy. It can play this role only because it is independent.