The Indian Judiciary is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India

The Indian Judiciary is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India

• 1.
  JUDICIARY OF INDIAAND ITS FAMOUS CHIEF JUSTICE
• 2.
  INTRODUCTION • The IndianJudiciary is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. India uses a common law system, first introduced by the British East India Company and with influence from other colonial powers and Indian princely states, as well as practices from ancient and medieval times. The constitution provides for a single unified judiciary in India. • The Indian judicial system is managed and administrated by officers. Judges of Subordinate Judiciaries are appointed by the governor on recommendation by the High Court. Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a collegium. • • The judicial system is structured in three levels with subsidiary parts. The Supreme Court, also known as the Apex Court, is the top court and the ultimate appellate court in India. The Chief Justice of India leads that court. High Courts are the top judicial bodies in individual states, controlled and managed by state Chief Justices. Below the High Courts are District Courts, also known as subordinate courts, that are controlled and managed by District and Sessions Judges. The lower subordinate courts are Civil Court and the District Munsif Court, headed a Sub- Judge. The higher subordinate Criminal Court is headed by Chief Judicial/Metropolitan Magistrate at top and followed by ACJM /ACMM and JM/MMat the lower level.
• 3.
  • The Executiveand Revenue Courts are managed by the state government through the district magistrate and commissioner, respectively. Although the executive courts are not part of the judiciary, various provisions and judgements empower the High Courts and Session Judges to inspect or direct their operation. • • The Ministry of Law and Justice at the Union level is responsible for raising issues before Parliament relating to the judiciary. It has jurisdiction to deal with the issues of any court. It also deals with the appointment of Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. At the state level, the law departments of the states deal with issues regarding the High Court and the Subordinate Courts.
• 4.
  Appointment • Under PartsV and VI of the Constitution, the President of India appoints Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court with the consent of the Chief Justice. In practice, cultural norms are followed in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. In accordance with the principles set forth in the Three Judges Cases, the President selects from a list recommended by the collegium – a closed group consisting of the Chief Justice and the most senior judges of the Supreme Court. Prior to the Three Judges Cases, the President appointed judges upon their recommendation by the Union Cabinet. In 1993, as a result of the Second Judges Case, the executive was given the power to reject a name recommended by the judiciary. The executive has since faced criticism for its decisions relating to this power. • • Decisions by the collegium have been the subject of legal scrutiny. In Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors., the court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and that any person therefore had a right to question the court's determination regarding a candidate's qualifications. However, the court also wrote that who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as a judge's appointment is the subject of a legitimate consultation by the collegium, the content or material it uses to form its opinion cannot be scrutinized by a court.
• 5.
  • In contrastto the historical norms concerning Supreme Court and High Court appointments, appointments for Subordinate Court Judges are handled as prescribed under the constitution and other laws and codes. Appointments are generally made by the Public Service Commission of a particular state. However, in some states, the respective High Court can appoint judges of subordinate courts. Regardless of the source of the appointment, the process for the appointment of judges is the same, and is based on the results of a competitive examination. Junior Division civil judges may advance to judicial positions in the Provincial Civil Service, while entry level district judges with at least 7 years of experience can complete the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) exam in order to advance. •
• 6.
  History • The historyof jury trials in India dates to the period of European colonisation. In 1665, a petit jury in Madras composed of twelve English and Portuguese jurors acquitted Ascentia Dawes, who was on trial for the murder of her enslaved servant.[18] During the period of Company rule in India, jury trials within dual-court system territories were implemented in Indian territories under East India Company (EIC) control. In Presidency towns (such as Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras), Crown Courts employed juries to judge European and Indian defendants in criminal cases. Outside of Presidency towns, Company Courts staffed by EIC officials judged both criminal and civil cases without the use of a jury. • • In 1860, after the British Crown assumed control over the EIC's possessions in India, the Indian Penal Code was adopted. A year later, the Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted.[18] These provisions stipulated that criminal juries were only mandatory in the High Courts of Presidency towns; in all other parts of British India, they were optional and rare. In cases where the defendants were either European or American, at least half of the jury was required to be European or American men, with the justification given that juries in these cases had to be "acquainted with [the defendant's] feelings and dispositions." • • During the 20th century, the jury system in British India came under criticism from both colonial officials and independence activists.[18] The system received no mentions in the 1950 Indian Constitution and went unimplemented in many jurisdictions after independence. In 1958, the Law Commission of India recommended its abolition in the fourteenth report that the commission submitted to the Indian government.Jury trials in India were gradually abolished during the 1960s, culminating with the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, which remained in effect in the 21st century.
• 7.
  Research • Rank • District/ Field Posting • State / High Court Posting • Central / Supreme Court Posting • Current Pay Scale (Level) • hideProposed Pay Scale • 1 • — • — • Chief Justice of India • ₹280,000 (US$3,500) (NA) • Pay scale already increased