HIERARCHY OF COURTS IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION

The Indian government has been guided by three pillars/organs; Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. The Legislature is responsible for enacting/ making laws, and the Executive is responsible for the execution of those laws. And the third organ is Judiciary which is responsible for interpreting the laws, settling disputes, and administering justice to all citizens. The judiciary is considered the watchdog of democracy and is also regarded as the guardian of the Constitution. To guarantee that the rule of law would inure to, and for, everyone and the promises made by the Constitution would not remain merely on paper, the Constitution makers made provisions for independence of the judiciary. Further, it acts as a backbone of the government because whenever there is a dispute between the Centre and State, between State and the citizens, and among the states, Judiciary is the only organ that controls the dispute and passes judgment. The Judgment passed by the Judiciary is binding on all whether it may be citizens or government. Judiciary is the guardian of human rights, protector of the constitution, and promoter of peace and cordiality in India. It checks and balances the legislative or executive actions of the Government. Judiciary in India enjoys a very significant position since it has been made the guardian and custodian of the Constitution. Living in a country that has been ranked a country with the 2nd largest population in the world, makes it necessary to have a fair and impartial judiciary system.

Unlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial system. There are various levels of judiciary in India that form a hierarchy. This Hierarchy consists of different types of courts, each with varying powers depending on the tier and jurisdiction bestowed upon them. They form a hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of courts in which they sit, with the Supreme Court of India at the top, followed by High Courts of respective states with District Judges sitting in District Courts and Magistrates of Second Class and Civil Judge (Junior Division) at the bottom.

The author of this article will endeavor to explain this hierarchy of Courts.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS

SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28, 1950. It succeeded the Federal Court of India, established under the Government of India Act of 1935. Notwithstanding, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is greater than that of its predecessor. This is because the Supreme Court has superseded the British Privy Council as the highest court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution administer with the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures, and so on of the Supreme Court. The Parliament is also authorized to regulate them.

· ORGANISATION OF SUPREME COURT

Presently, the Supreme Court consists of thirty-one judges (one chief justice and thirty other judges). In February 2009, the center announced an accretion in the number of Supreme Court judges from twenty-six to thirty-one, including the Chief Justice of India. This supported the enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008. Originally, the strength of the Supreme Court was determined at eight (one chief justice and seven other judges). The Parliament has raised this number of other judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to 17 in 1977, and 25 in 1986.

· APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES

The appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court is done by the president. The chief justice is appointed by the president following consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he considers essential. The other judges are appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice plus other judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems essential. The consultation with the chief justice is essential in the case of the appointment of a judge other than the Chief justice.

· QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES

A person to be designated as a judge of the Supreme Court should have the following qualifications:

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. (a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high courts in succession) for five years, or (b) He should have been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in succession) for ten years, or (c) He should be a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.

From the above-mentioned points, it is apparent that the Constitution has not prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.

· OATH OR AFFIRMATION

A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, before joining upon his office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation in front of the President, or some person appointed by him for the same. In this oath, a judge of the Supreme Court swears:

1. to have true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;

2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;

3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge, and judgment discharge the duties of the Office fearlessly, without favour, affection or ill-will; and

4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

· TENURE OF JUDGES

The Constitution has not set the tenure of a judge of the Supreme Court. However, it advances the following three stipulations in this regard:

1. He exists in office until he achieves the age of 65 years. Any question regarding his age is to be resolved by such authority and in such mode as provided by Parliament.

2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.

3. He can be expelled from his office by the President on the recommendation of the Parliament.

· REMOVAL OF JUDGES

A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his post by an order of the president. The President can declare the removal order only after an address by Parliament has been conferred to him in the same session for such removal. The address must be bolstered by a special majority of each House of Parliament (ie, a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). The grounds of such deportation are two—proved misbehaviour or incapacity. further, The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) guides the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the rule of impeachment:

1. A removal motion endorsed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.

2. The Speaker/Chairman may allow the motion or decline to admit it.

3. If it is confirmed, then the Speaker/Chairman is to organize a three-member committee to investigate the charges.

4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, (b) the chief justice of a high court, and (c) a prominent jurist.

5. If the committee determines the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour or affliction from an incapacity, the House can take up the consideration of the motion.

6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority, an address is manifested to the president for removal of the judge.

7. Finally, the president relinquishes an order removing the judge. It is fascinating to ken that no judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far. The first and the only case of impeachment is that of Justice V Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court (1991–1993). Though the inquiry Committee found him guilty for his misbehaviour, he could not be expelled as the impeachment motion was crushed in the Lok Sabha. The Congress Party refrained from voting.

• SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court are settled from time to time by the Parliament. They cannot deviate to their disadvantage after their appointment, except during a financial emergency. In 2009, the wages of the chief justice were raised from 33,000 to 1 lakh per month and that of a judge from 30,000 to 90,000 per month. They are also paid a sumptuary allowance and rendered with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car, telephone, etc. The retired chief justice and judges are designated to 50 percent of their last drawn salary as their monthly pension.

· SEAT OF SUPREME COURT

The Constitution assures Delhi as the seat of the Supreme Court. However, it also authorizes the chief justice of India to elect other place or places as the seat of the Supreme Court. He can decide in this regard solely with the approval of the President. This provision is only voluntary and not compulsory. This means that no court can grant any direction either to the President or to the Chief Justice to elect any other place as a seat of the Supreme Court.

· PROCEDURE OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court can, with the consent of the president, make rules for directing generally the practice and procedure of the Court. The Constitutional cases or recommendations made by the President under Article 143 are decided by a Bench consisting of at least 5 judges. All other cases are usually determined by a bench consisting of not less than 3 judges. The judgments are addressed by the open court. All judgments are by majority vote but if differing, then judges can deliver dissenting judgments or opinions.

· INDEPENDENCE OF SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has been allotted a very meaningful role in the Indian democratic political system. It is a federal court, the most distinguished court of appeal, the guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens, and guardian of the Constitution. Therefore, its independence becomes very crucial for the effective emanation of the duties assigned to it. It should be liberated from the encroachments, pressures, and interferences of the executive (council of ministers) and the Legislature (Parliament). It should be enabled to do justice without fear or favour. The Constitution has made the following provisions to safeguard and secure the independent and impartial functioning of the Supreme Court:

1. Mode of Appointment

The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President (which means the cabinet) in consultation with the members of the judiciary itself (ie, judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts). This provision abridges the absolute discretion of the executive as well as assures that the judicial appointments are not based on any political or practical deliberations.

2. Security of Tenure

The judges of the Supreme Court are equipped with the Security of Tenure. They can be expelled from office by the President only in the manner and on the grounds specified in the Constitution. This means that they do not hold their office throughout the pleasure of the President, though they are furnished by him. This is evident from the fact that no judge of the Supreme Court has been removed (or impeached) so far.

3. Fixed Service Conditions

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court are settled from time to time by the Parliament. They cannot be altered to their disadvantage after their appointment except during a financial emergency. Thus, the requirements of service of the judges of the Supreme Court remain the same during their term of office.

4. Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund

The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the judges and the staff as well as all the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court are imposed on the Consolidated Fund of India. Thus, they are non-votable by the Parliament (though they can be treated by it).

5. Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed

The Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament or in a State Legislature concerning the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court in the emanation of their duties, except when an impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.

6. Ban on Practice after Retirement

The retired judges of the Supreme Court are restrained from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India. This assures that they do not favour anyone in the hope of future favour.

7. Power to Punish for its Contempt

The Supreme Court can penalize any person for its contempt. Thus, its actions and decisions cannot be criticized and refuted by anybody. This power is vested in the Supreme Court to preserve its authority, dignity, and honour.

8. Freedom to Appoint its Staff

The Chief Justice of India can appoint officers and servants of the Supreme Court without any intervention from the executive. He can also direct their conditions of service.

9. Its Jurisdiction cannot be Curtailed

The Parliament is not authorized to shorten the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The Constitution has guaranteed to the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of various kinds. However, the Parliament can lengthen the same.

10. Separation from Executive

The Constitution commands the State to take steps to separate the Judiciary from the Executive in the public services. This indicates that the executive authorities should not possess judicial powers. Subsequently, upon its implementation, the purpose of executive authorities in judicial administration came to an end.

· JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF SUPREME COURT

The Constitution has bestowed very extensive jurisdiction and vast powers on the Supreme Court. It is not only a Federal Court alike the American Supreme Court but also a final court of appeal like the British House of Lords (the Upper House of the British Parliament). It is also the ultimate interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Further, it possesses advisory and supervisory powers. Therefore, Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar, a member of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, rightly commented: “The Supreme Court of India has more powers than any other Supreme Court in any part of the world.” The jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court can be categorized into the following:

1. Original Jurisdiction.

2. Writ Jurisdiction.

3. Appellate Jurisdiction.

4. Advisory Jurisdiction.

5. A Court of Record.

6. Power of Judicial Review.

7. Other Powers

HIGH COURTS

In the Indian single integrated judicial system, the high court functions below the Supreme Court but above the subordinate courts. The judiciary in a state consists of a high court and a hierarchy of subordinate courts. The high court holds the top position in the judicial administration of a state. The high courts were introduced in India in 1862 and were set up at Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. In 1866, a fourth high court was endowed at Allahabad. With time, each province in British India originated to have its high court. After 1950, a high court existing in a province became the high court for the corresponding state. The Constitution of India caters for a high court for each state, but the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 authorized the Parliament to install a common high court for two or more States or two or more states and a union territory. The territorial jurisdiction of a high court endures co-terminus with the territory of a state. Similarly, the territorial jurisdiction of a common high court is co-terminus with the territories of the concerned states and union territory. Presently, there are 24 high courts in the country. Amongst which, four are common high courts. Delhi is the sole union territory that has a high court of its own (since 1966). The other union territories befall under the jurisdiction of different state high courts. The Parliament can enlarge the jurisdiction of a high court to any union territory or eliminate the jurisdiction of a high court from any union territory.

Articles 214 to 231 in Part VI of the Constitution administers the organization, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures, and so on of the high courts.

• ORGANISATION OF HIGH COURT

Every high court (whether exclusive or common) comprises of a chief justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time deem necessary to appoint. Thus, the Constitution does not stipulate the strength of a high court and devises it to the discretion of the president. Consequently, the President resolves the strength of a high court depending upon its workload from time to time.

· APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES

The President appoints the judges of a high court. The chief justice is appointed by the President after consultation with the chief justice of India and the governor of the state concerned. For the appointment of other judges, the chief justice of the concerned high court is also asked. In the case of a joint high court for two or more states, the governors of all the states concerned are consulted by the president. In Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court ordered that no appointment of a judge of the high court can be made unless it conforms with the notion of the chief justice of India. In Re Presidential Reference (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of the appointment of high court judges, the chief justice of India must consult a collegium of two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. Thus, the sole notion of the chief justice of India alone does not compound the ‘consultation’ process. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have superseded the Collegium System of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts with a fresh body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in 2015, the Supreme Court has announced both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the prior collegium system became operative again. This verdict was remitted by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Advocates–on–Record Association and another vs. Union of India (2015). The Court declared that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would influence the independence of the judiciary.

· QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES

A person to be appointed as a judge of a high court must have the following qualifications:

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. (a) He should have held a judicial office in the territory of India for ten years, or (b) He should have been an advocate of a high court (or high courts in succession) for ten years.

From the above-mentioned points, it is apparent that the Constitution has not prescribed any minimum age for the appointment as a judge of a high court. Besides, unlike in the case of the Supreme Court, the Consitution makes no provision for the appointment of a noted jurist as a judge of a high court.

· OATH OR AFFIRMATION

A person appointed as a judge of a high court, before entering his office, has to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation ere the governor of the state or some person delegated by him for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of a high court affirms:

1. to display true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;

2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;

3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge, and judgment perform the duties of the office without fear or favor, affection or ill-will; and

4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

· TENURE OF JUDGES

The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of a high court. Though, it advances the following four provisions in this regard:

1. He holds office until he attains the age of 62 years. Any interrogatories regarding his age are to be resolved by the president after consultation with the chief justice of India and the decision of the president is closing.

2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.

3. He can be expelled from his office by the President on the proposal of the Parliament.

4. He vacates his office when he is appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court or when he is transferred to another high court.

· REMOVAL OF JUDGES

A judge of a high court can be expelled from his office by an order of the President. The President can declare the removal order only after an address by the Parliament has been conferred to him in the same session for such removal. The address must be verified by a special majority of each House of Parliament (i.e., a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). The grounds of such removal are—determined misbehavior or incapacity. Thus, a judge of a high court can be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) governs the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of a high court by the process of impeachment:

1. A removal motion endorsed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.

2. The Speaker/Chairman may allow the motion or refuse to admit it.

3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to appoint a three-member committee to examine the charges.

4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, (b) the chief justice of a high court, and (c) a distinguished jurist.

5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehavior or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the consideration of the motion.

6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority, an address is presented to the president for removal of the judge.

7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge. From the above, it is clear that the procedure for the impeachment of a judge of a high court is the same as that for a judge of the Supreme Court. It is interesting to know that no judge of a high court has been impeached so far. Salaries and Allowances The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the Parliament. They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment except during a financial emergency. In 2009, the salary of the chief justice was increased from 30,000 to 90,000 per month and that of a judge from 26,000 to 80,000 per month. They are also paid a sumptuary allowance and provided with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car, telephone, etc. The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50% of their last drawn salary as a monthly pension.

· INDEPENDENCE OF HIGH COURT

The independence of a high court is very essential for the effective discharge of the duties assigned to it. It should be free from the encroachments, pressures, and interferences of the executive (council of ministers) and the legislature. It should be allowed to do justice without fear or favor. The Constitution has made the following provisions to safeguard and ensure the independent and impartial functioning of a high court.

1. Mode of Appointment

The judges of a high court are appointed by the president (which means the cabinet) in consultation with the members of the judiciary itself (i.e., chief justice of India and the chief justice of the high court). This provision curtails the absolute discretion of the executive as well as ensures that the judicial appointments are not based on any political or practical considerations.

2. Security of Tenure

The judges of a high court are provided with the security of tenure. They can be removed from office by the president only in the manner and on the grounds mentioned in the Constitution. This means that they do not hold their office during the pleasure of the president, though they are appointed by him. This is obvious from the fact that no judge of a high court has been removed (or impeached) so far.

3. Fixed Service Conditions

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of a high court are determined from time to time by the Parliament. But, they cannot be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment except during a financial emergency. Thus, the conditions of service of the judges of a high court remain the same during their term of office.

4. Expenses Charged on Consolidated Fund

The salaries and allowances of the judges, the salaries, allowances, and pensions of the staff as well as the administrative expenses of a high court are charged on the consolidated fund of the state. Thus, they are non-votable by the state legislature (though they can be discussed by it). It should be noted here that the pension of a high court judge is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and not the state.

5. Conduct of Judges cannot be Discussed

The Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament or a state legislature concerning the conduct of the judges of a high court in the discharge of their duties, except when an impeachment motion is under consideration of the Parliament.

6. Ban on Practice after Retirement

The retired permanent judges of a high court are prohibited from pleading or acting in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other high courts. This ensures that they do not favor anyone in the hope of future favor.

7. Power to Punish for its Contempt

A high court can punish any person for its contempt. Thus, its actions and decisions cannot be criticized and opposed by anybody. This power is vested in a high court to maintain its authority, dignity, and honor.

8. Freedom to Appoint its Staff

The chief justice of a high court can appoint officers and servants of the high court without any interference from the executive. He can also prescribe their conditions of service.

9. Its Jurisdiction cannot be Curtailed

The jurisdiction and powers of a high court in so far as they are specified in the Constitution cannot be curtailed both by the Parliament and the state legislature. But, in other respects, the jurisdiction and powers of a high court can be changed both by the parliament and the state legislature.

10. Separation from Executive

The Constitution guides the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services. This means that the executive authorities should not hold judicial powers. Consequent to its implementation, the role of executive authorities in judicial administration came to an end.

· JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF HIGH COURT

Like the Supreme Court, the high court has been endowed with quite extensive and effective powers. It is the most eminent court of appeal in the state. It is the guardian of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. It is vested with the power to decipher the Constitution. Besides, it has supervisory and consultative roles. However, the Constitution does not contain explicit provisions regarding the jurisdiction and powers of a high court. It only sets down that the jurisdiction and powers of a high court are to be the same as directly before the commencement of the Constitution. Additionally, the Constitution provides a high court jurisdiction over revenue matters (which it did not enjoy in the pre-constitution era). The Constitution also bestows (by other provisions) some more additional powers on a high court like writ jurisdiction, power of superintendence, consultative power, etc. Moreover, it authorizes the Parliament and the state legislature to modify the jurisdiction and powers of a high court. Presently, a high court enjoys the following jurisdiction and powers:

1. Original jurisdiction.

2. Writ jurisdiction.

3. Appellate jurisdiction.

4. Supervisory jurisdiction.

5. Control over subordinate courts.

6. A court of record.

7. Power of judicial review.

The present jurisdiction and powers of a high court are administered by (a) the constitutional provisions, (b) the Letters Patent, (c) the Acts of Parliament, (d) the Acts of State Legislature, (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860, (f) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and (g) Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

SUBORDINATE COURTS

The state judiciary comprises a high court and a hierarchy of subordinate courts, also known as lower courts. The subordinate courts are so-called because of their subordination to the state high court. They function below and under the high court at district and lower levels.

· CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI of the Constitution make the following provisions to regulate the organization of subordinate courts and to ensure their independence from the executive.

- APPOINTMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGES

The appointment, posting, and promotion of district judges in a state are made by the governor of the state in consultation with the high court. A person to be appointed as district judge should have the following qualifications:

(a) He should not already be in the service of the Central or the state government.

(b) He should have been an advocate or a pleader for seven years.

(c) He should be recommended by the high court for an appointment.

· APPOINTMENT OF OTHER JUDGES

Appointments of persons (other than district judges) to the judicial service of a state are made by the governor of the state after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the high court.

· CONTROL OVER SUBORDINATE COURTS

The control over district courts and other subordinate courts including the posting, promotion, and leave of persons belonging to the judicial service of a state and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge is vested in the high court.

The expression ‘district judge’ includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge, and assistant sessions judge. The expression ‘judicial service’ means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of the district judge.

The Governor may direct that the above-mentioned provisions relating to persons in the state judicial service would apply to any class or classes of magistrates in the state.

- STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION

The organizational structure, jurisdiction, and nomenclature of the subordinate judiciary are laid down by the states. Hence, they differ slightly from state to state. Broadly speaking, there are three tiers of civil and criminal courts below the High Court. This is shown as follows:

The district judge is the highest judicial authority in the district. He possesses original and appellate jurisdiction in both civil as well as criminal matters. In other words, the district judge is also the sessions judge. When he deals with civil cases, he is known as the district judge and when he hears the criminal cases, he is called the sessions judge. The district judge exercises both judicial and administrative powers. He also has supervisory powers over all the subordinate courts in the district. Appeals against his orders and judgments lie to the High Court. The session judge has the power to impose any sentence including life imprisonment and capital punishment (death sentence). However, a capital punishment passed by him is subject to confirmation by the High Court, whether there is an appeal or not. Below the District and Sessions Court stands the Court of Subordinate Judge on the civil side and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the criminal side. The subordinate judge exercises unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction over civil suits. The chief judicial magistrate decides criminal cases which are punishable with imprisonment for a term up to seven years. At the lowest level, on the civil side, is the Court of Munsiff and on the criminal side, is the Court of Judicial Magistrate. The massif possesses limited jurisdiction and decides civil cases of small pecuniary stake. The judicial magistrate tries criminal cases which are punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years. In some metropolitan cities, there are city civil courts (chief judges) on the civil side and the courts of metropolitan magistrates on the criminal side. Some of the States and Presidency towns have established small causes courts. These courts decide the civil cases of small value in a summary manner. Their decisions are final, but the High Court possesses a power of revision. In some states, Panchayat Courts try petty civil and criminal cases. They are variously known as Nyaya Panchayat, Gram Kutchery, Adalati Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, and so on.

· NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society and ensures justice for all. Articles 14 and 22(1) of the Constitution also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before the law and a legal system that promotes justice based on equal opportunity to all. In the year 1987, the Legal Services Authorities Act was enacted by the Parliament which came into force on 9th November 1995 to establish a nationwide uniform network for providing free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society based on equal opportunity. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to monitor and evaluate the implementation of legal aid programs and to lay down policies and principles for making legal services available under the Act. In every State, a State Legal Services Authority, and in every High Court, a High Court Legal Services Committee has been constituted. District Legal Services Authorities, Taluk Legal Services Committees have been constituted in the Districts and most of the Taluks to give effect to the policies and directions of the NALSA and to provide free legal services to the people and conduct Lok Adalat in the State. Supreme Court Legal Services Committee has been constituted to administer and implement the legal services program insofar as it relates to the Supreme Court of India. NALSA lays down policies, principles, guidelines, and frames effective and economical schemes for the State Legal Services Authorities to implement the Legal Services Programmes throughout the country. Primarily, the State Legal Services Authorities, District Legal Services Authorities, Taluk Legal Services Committees, etc. have been asked to discharge the following main functions on regular basis:

1. To provide free and competent legal services to eligible persons.

2. To organize Lok Adalat for amicable settlement of disputes.

3. To organize legal awareness camps in the rural areas. The free legal services include: - (a) Payment of court fee, process fees, and all other charges payable or incurred in connection with any legal proceedings. (b) Providing service of lawyers in legal proceedings. (c) Obtaining and supply of certified copies of orders and other documents in legal proceedings. (d) Preparation of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents in legal proceedings.

The persons eligible for getting free legal services include- (i) Women and children (ii) Members of SC/ST (iii) Industrial workmen (iv) Victims of mass disaster, violence, flood, drought, earthquake, industrial disaster (v) Disabled persons (vi) Persons in custody (vii) Persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 1 lakh (in the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee the limit is Rs. 1,25,000/-). (viii) Victims of trafficking in human beings or beggar.

REFERENCES

1. Indian Polity, M Laxmikanth, 5th Edition

2. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011)

3. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, 2020)

4. Dr. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths, 2002)

5. https://pscnotes.in/hierarchy-of-courts-in-india-with-flowchart/#h-lower-courts