Volume : 1, Issue : 1, OCT 2017

INDIA’S JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

Dr. R. Rajarajan

Abstract

The power and functioning of different branches of government is intertwined with their structure. A bicameral legislature functions differently than a unicameral. The powers of an executive headed by a President differs from that headed by a Prime Minister. The judiciary is no different. This article describes the architecture of the Indian judiciary–in other words, the different types of courts and judges in the Indian judicial system and the hierarchies and relations between them. In particular, it focuses on how the Indian judiciary coordinates its behavior through appeal and stare decisis and through a system of internal administrative control. Although the Indian judicial system, particularly the upper judiciary (i.e. the Supreme Court and High Courts), plays a central role in Indian political life and is widely covered in the media, there has been limited academic literature on the impact of the judiciary’s structure. The functioning of the Indian Supreme Court has only begun to be explored (Dhavan 1978; Robinson 2013), and even less attention has been given to India’s High Courts and subordinate judiciary (Dhavan 1986; Moog 2003: 1390; Krishnan et al 2014: 153).

Keywords

Rights, People, Activism, Participation and Justice.

Article : Download PDF

Cite This Article

Article No : 7

Number of Downloads : 0

References

  1. Upendra Baxi, The Travails of Stare Decisis in India, in LEGAL CHANGE: ESSAYS
  2. IN HONOUR OF JULIUS STONE (AR Blackshield ed. 1983)
  3. Upendra Baxi, Preface in THE SHIFTING SCALES OF JUSTICE: THE SUPREME COURT IN NEO-LIBERAL INDIA (Mayur Suresh and Siddharth Narrain eds., 2014)
  4. Abhinav Chandrachud, An Empirical Study of the Supreme Court’s Composition,
  5. 46(1) ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY 2011
  6. Chief Justices Conference 2009, Notes on Agenda Items, Aug. 14-15 (2009)
  7. RAJEEV DHAVAN, THE SUPREME COURT UNDER STRAIN – THE CHALLENGE OF ARREARS (1978)
  8. RAJEEV DHAVAN, LITIGATION EXPLOSION IN INDIA (1986)
  9. Theodore Eisenberg, Sital Kalantry, and Nick Robinson, Litigation as a Measure of Well Being, 62(2) DEPAUL LAW REV. 247 (2013)
  10. MARC GALANTER, COMPETING EQUALITIES: LAW AND THE BACKWARD CLASSES IN INDIA 481 (1984)
  11. Marc Galanter and Jayanth Krishnan, Bread for the Poor: Access to Justice and
  12. Rights of the Needy in India 55 HASTINGS LAW J. 789 (2004)
  13. Marc Galanter and Nick Robinson, India’s Grand Advocates: a legal elite flourishing in the age of globalization, 20(3) INT’L J. OF THE LEGAL PROF. 241 (2014)
  14. Menaka Guruswamy and Aditya Singh, Village Courts in India: unconstitutional forums with unjust outcomes, 3(3) J. OF ASIAN PUBLIC POLICY 281 (2010)
  15. Jayanth Krishnan et al. Grappling at the Grassroots: Access to Justice in India’s
  16. Lower Tier, 27 HARVARD HUM. RTS. J. 151 (2014)
  17. Robert Moog, The Significance of Lower Courts in the Judicial Process, in THE
  18. OXFORD INDIAN COMPANION TO SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY (2003)
  19. Nick Robinson et al., Interpreting the Constitution: Indian Supreme Court
  20. Benches Since Independence, 46(9) EC. & POL. WEEKLY (Feb. 26, 2011)
  21. Nick Robinson, Structure Maters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and U.S. Supreme Courts, 61(1) AMERICAN J. OF COMPARATIVE LAW (2013)
  22. Nick Robinson, A Quantitative Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s Workload,
  23. 10(3) JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES 570 (2013)
  24. MP Singh, Situating the Constitution in the District Courts, 8 DELHI JUDICIAL ACADEMY JOURNAL, 47 (2012)