View source for Judiciary of India

{{Short description|National court system}}
{{more citations needed|date=May 2024}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2019}}
{{Use Indian English|date=April 2019}}
{{Infobox
| title            = Judiciary of India
| headerstyle      = background:#FF0000; color:white;
| header1          = Service overview
| image            = [[File:Insignia of the Supreme Court of India.svg|frameless|250px]]
| caption          = Motto: ''Yatō Dharmastatō Jayaḥ''<br />Where there is righteousness, there is victory.
| label3           = Formerly known as
| data3            = Federal Judiciary
| label4           = [[Date of establishment|Founded]]
| data4            = [[Mayor's Court|Mayor's Court, Madras]] (1726)
| label5           = [[Country]]
| data5            = {{Flag|India}}
| label6           = Training Institute
| data6            = [[National Judicial Academy]] (Bhopal)<ref name="National Judicial Academy">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nja.nic.in/|title=National Judicial Academy|date=24 March 2020|access-date=24 March 2020|archive-date=5 December 2003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031205034402/http://www.nja.nic.in/|url-status=dead}}</ref><br />State Judicial Academy
| label7           = Controlling authority
| data7            = [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] <br />[[High Courts of India|High Court]]
| label8           = Legal personality
| data8            = [[Judiciary]]
| label9           = Duties
| data9            = Justice Administration<br>Public Interest Litigation<br/>Guardian of the Constitution
| label10          = Hierarchy of Courts in India
| data10           = 1. [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]]<br /> 2. [[High Courts of India|High Court]]<br />3. [[District Courts of India|District Court]]<br />4. Executive /Revenue Court
| label11          = Post Designation
| data11           = [[Judge|Justice]]<br />[[Judge]]<br />[[Magistrate]] - Judicial & Executive
| label12          = [[En cadre|Cadre strength]]
| data12           = 23,790 Judges strength (34 in Supreme Court, 1079 for High Court, 22677 for Subordinate Court)
| label13          = Selection / Appointment
| data13           = [[President of India]] for SC & HC Judges (as per the recommendations of Collegium)<br>[[Governor]] for Subordinate Judiciary (after passing the Judicial Service Exam)
| label14          = Salary
| data14           = ₹77,840 - ₹2,80,000
| label15          = Associations
| data15           = All India Judges Association<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://allindiajudges.org/|title=All India Judges|website=allindiajudges.org}}</ref>
| header16         = Head of Judiciary
| label17          = [[Chief Justice of India]]
| data17           = Justice [[B. R. Gavai]] (52nd[[Chief Justice of India|CJI]])
}}
{{Courts of India}} 
The '''Judiciary of India''' ([[ISO 15919|ISO]]: ''Bhārata kī Nyāyapālikā'') is the system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the [[Republic of India]]. The [[Constitution of India]] provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India. India uses a [[List of national legal systems|mixed legal system]] based majorly on the [[common law]] with [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]]s applicable in certain territories in combination with certain religion specific [[personal law]]s.

The judiciary is structured in three levels with subsidiary parts. The [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] is the highest court and serves as the final [[Appellate court|court of appeal]] for all civil and criminal cases in India. [[High courts of India|High Courts]] are the top judicial courts in individual [[States and union territories of India|states]], led by the state Chief Justice. The High Courts manage a system of subordinate courts headed by the various [[District courts of India|District and Session Courts]] in their respective jurisdictions. The executive and revenue courts are managed by the respective state governments through the [[district magistrate]]s or other executive magistrates. 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 [[Chief Justice of India]], other judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the [[President of India]] on the recommendation of a [[collegium system]] consisting of judges of the Supreme Court. Judges of subordinate judiciaries are appointed by the governors on the recommendation of the respective High Courts.

At the Union level, the [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)|Ministry of Law and Justice]] is responsible for formulating laws and addressing issues relating to the judiciary with the [[Parliament of India|Parliament]]. It has jurisdiction to deal with the issues of any court and also deals with the appointment of the various judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. At the state level, the respective law departments of the states deal with issues regarding the High Court and the subordinate courts.

== Constitution ==
The [[Constitution of India]] empowers the judiciary to act as the Guardian of the Law. A number of provisions deal with the judiciary's role, power, function, and officer appointments. The major provisions are:
* Part V - Chapter IV - Union Judiciary i.e., Supreme Court - appointment and removal, role and function
* Part VI - Chapter V - High Court - appointment and removal, role and function
* Part VI - Chapter VI- Subordinate Courts - appointment and removal, role and function
* Article 50 - Independence of Judiciary - separates judiciary from executive branch
* Other provisions appear under parts and articles that deal with the court's responsibilities.

The judiciary acts as the arbiter on legal matters. The judiciary acts as the Constitution's watchdog by calling for scrutiny any act of the legislature or the executive from overstepping bounds set for them by the Constitution.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bhattacharyya |first1=Bishwajit |title=Supreme Court Shows Govt Its LoC |url=http://www.dayafterindia.com/magz_detail_news.php?id=4202 |access-date=10 November 2015 |work=the day after |issue= 1–15 Nov 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505192102/http://www.dayafterindia.com/magz_detail_news.php?id=4202 |archive-date=5 May 2016 }}</ref> It acts as a guardian in protecting the fundamental rights of the people, as enshrined in the Constitution, from infringement by any organ of the state. It also balances the conflicting exercise of power between the centre and a state or among states.

The judiciary is expected to remain unaffected by pressures exerted by other branches of government, citizens or interest groups. The independence of the judiciary is a [[Basic structure doctrine|basic and inalienable feature of the Constitution]],<ref>{{cite report |publisher=National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution|title=A Consultation Paper on the Financial Autonomy of the Indian Judiciary|url=http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b2-1.htm|chapter=1. New Delhi (26 September 2001)|access-date=5 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052816/http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b2-1.htm|archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Chakrabarty|first1=Bidyut|title=Indian Politics and Society Since Independence: Events, Processes and Ideology|date=2008|publisher=Routledge|location=Oxon(UK), New York (US)|isbn=978-0-415-40867-7|page=103|edition=First|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kOGWI1BOjOUC&pg=PA103|access-date=5 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sorabjee|first1=Soli J.|title=A step in the Wrong Direction|url=http://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/invalidating-thenjac-act.html|access-date=12 November 2015|work=The Week|date=1 November 2015}}</ref> One such protection is that no minister can suggest a name to the President,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venu|first1=M.K.|title=Government may drop gag clause, wants judges to show restraint|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/government-may-drop-gag-clause-wants-judges-to-show-restraint/article4883161.ece|access-date=5 November 2015|work=The Hindu|date=5 July 2013}}</ref><ref name=SanjayHegde>{{cite news|last=Hegde|first=Sanjay|title=Judging the Judge-Maker|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/njac-judging-the-judgemaker/article7777564.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=19 October 2015|access-date=24 October 2015}}</ref> who ultimately appoints judges from a list recommended by the collegium system. Judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court cannot be removed from office once appointed, unless a two-thirds majority of members of any Houses of the Parliament back the move on grounds of misconduct or incapacity.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Bhushan|first1=Prashant|title=A historic non-impeachment|url=http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf|publisher=Frontline (4 June 1993)|access-date=5 December 2014|archive-date=9 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141209164542/http://bharatiyas.in/cjarold/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf}}</ref><ref name=SoumitraSen>{{cite web|title=Motion for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court|url=http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/Soumitra_Sen_Judge.pdf#page=409|publisher=Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, October 2011|pages=414–419|access-date=4 December 2014}}</ref> A person who has been a judge of a court is barred from practicing in the jurisdiction of that court.{{citation needed|date=March 2018}}

{{Anchor|Judge strength}}Judge strength refers to the maximum number of judges that the court is allowed to have.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Raising the SC's Strength |url=https://www.scobserver.in/journal/raising-the-scs-strength/ |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Appointment ===
{{see also|Collegium system}}

Under Parts V 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, 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 system – 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.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Venkatesan|first1=V.|title=Interview with Justice J.S. Verma, former Chief Justice of India (The Judiciary: 'Honesty Matters')|url=http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2520/stories/20081010252003500.htm|access-date=8 November 2015|work=Frontline|volume=25|issue=20 :: 27 Sep. – 10 October 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Krishna Iyer|first1=V. R.|title=Higher judicial appointments – II|url=http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106074107/http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/07/stories/05072524.htm|archive-date=6 January 2016|access-date=8 November 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=7 August 2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Thomas|first1=K. T.|title=In defence of the collegium|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-defence-of-the-collegium/|access-date=8 November 2015|work=The Indian Express|date=13 August 2014}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |date=6 July 2009 |title=Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., Transferred Case(C) No. 6 of 2009|url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18 |journal=Supreme Court of India |volume=2009 (8) SCC 273 |page=18/59 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208151733/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=34990#page=18 |archive-date=8 December 2015 |access-date=7 November 2015}}</ref>

In contrast to 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.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

== History ==

The history of [[jury trial]]s in India dates to the period of [[Colonial India|European colonisation]]. In 1665, a [[petit jury]] in [[Chennai|Madras]] composed of twelve English and Portuguese jurors acquitted Ascentia Dawes, who was on trial for the murder of her [[Slavery in India|enslaved servant]].<ref name=lay-justice-India>{{cite web|title=Lay Justice in India|author=Jean-Louis Halpérin|author-link=:fr:Jean-Louis Halpérin|date=25 March 2011|publisher=[[École Normale Supérieure]]|url=http://www.droit.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/Lay_Justice_in_India_1.pdf|access-date=3 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503122852/http://www.droit.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/Lay_Justice_in_India_1.pdf|archive-date=3 May 2014}}</ref> 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 [[Presidencies and provinces of British India|Presidency towns]] (such as [[Kolkata|Calcutta]], [[Mumbai|Bombay]], and Madras), [[Crown Court]]s employed juries to judge European and Indian defendants in [[Criminal law|criminal cases]]. Outside of Presidency towns, Company Courts staffed by EIC officials judged both criminal and [[Lawsuit|civil cases]] without the use of a jury.<ref name=lay-justice-India/>

In 1860, after the [[The Crown|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 (India)|Code of Criminal Procedure]] was adopted.<ref name=lay-justice-India/> These provisions stipulated that criminal juries were only mandatory in the High Courts of Presidency towns; in all other parts of [[British Raj|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."<ref name=lay-justice-India/>

During the 20th century, the jury system in British India came under criticism from both colonial officials and [[Indian independence movement|independence activists]].<ref name=lay-justice-India/> The system received no mentions in the 1950 [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]] and went unimplemented in many jurisdictions after independence. In 1958, the [[Law Commission of India]] recommended its abolition in the 14th commission report that was submitted to the Indian government.<ref name=lay-justice-India/> Jury trials in India were gradually abolished during the 1960s, culminating with the 1973 [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|Criminal Procedure Code]],<ref name=lay-justice-India/> which was replaced by the [[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita]]

=== Evolution of independent judiciary ===

The Sapru Committee Report, published in 1945, considered the judiciary in detail and reiterated what the Government of India Act 1935 had set out: a [[Federal Court of India]] would be established as the highest court. To separate the judiciary from the executive, the Sapru Committee suggested that judges have fixed salaries and tenures, and that they could only be removed for gross misbehaviour. Judges were to be appointed by the [[President of India]] in consultation with the Chief Justice. The committee appointed to deal with judicial questions as part of the Constituent Assembly in 1946 was influenced by the Sapru Report, though there was concern over the power given to the President. [[Jawaharlal Nehru]], however, supported the Sapru Committee's proposals. In 1949, Nehru said that Constituent Assembly judges ought to be individuals of "the highest integrity," who could "stand up against the executive government, and whoever may come in their way." [[B. R. Ambedkar]] emphasized the need for judicial independence stating, "There can be no difference of opinion in the House that our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself." Finally, the Constitution stated that "Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the tates as the President may deem necessary for the purpose," given that "in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://caravanmagazine.in/law/what-judiciary-done-itself|title=What the Indian judiciary has done to itself|last=Dev|first=Atul|website=The Caravan|language=en|access-date=2019-07-16}}</ref>

== Judicial Hierarchy==

=== Courts structure ===

[[File:Courts of India-overview.png|1000px|alt=Courts of India infographic|Courts of India]]

=== Supreme Court ===
{{Main|Supreme Court of India}}

[[File:Supreme Court of India - Retouched.jpg|thumb|Supreme Court building with the sculpture in the foreground]]

The Supreme Court is the highest court established by the Constitution. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court is a federal court, guardian of the Constitution, and the highest court of appeal. Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution lay down the court's composition and jurisdiction. Primarily, it is an appellate court that takes up appeals against judgments of the High Courts of the states and territories. It also takes writ petitions in cases of serious human rights violations or any petition filed under Article 32, which is the right to a constitutional remedy, or if a serious case involves needs immediate resolution.<ref>Introduction to the Constitution of I Ahmed</ref>

The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice and 33 judges.

It first sat on 26 January 1950, the day India's Constitution came into force,<ref>[http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm History] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111019224421/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm |date=19 October 2011 }}. Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 15 July 2012.</ref> and thereafter delivered more than 24,000 reported judgements.

Proceedings are conducted in English only. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 were framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, which exists to regulate its practices and procedures.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Supreme Court Rules, 1966|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/sites/default/files/scrules1966.pdf|publisher=The Supreme Court of India|location=New Delhi|year=2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Article 145 in The Constitution of India 1949|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1537130/|website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> Article 145 was amended and is governed by the Supreme Court Rules of 2013.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court Rules 2013|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supreme-court-rules-2013|website=supremecourtofindia.nic.in|publisher=Supreme Court of India|date=27 May 2014}}</ref>{{Clarify|reason=Do the rules govern the amendment? Or do they reflect the amendment and govern the court?|date=July 2022}}

=== High courts ===
{{Main|High courts of India}}

25 High Courts operate at the state level.<ref>{{Cite web |title=High Courts {{!}} Official Website of e-Committee, Supreme Court of India {{!}} India |url=https://ecommitteesci.gov.in/high-courts/ |access-date=2023-10-29 |language=en-US}}</ref> [[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 141 .7BLaw declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.7D|Article 141]] of the Constitution mandates that they are bound by the judgements and orders of the [[Supreme Court of India]] by precedence. These courts have jurisdiction over a state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories. High courts were instituted as [[constitutional court]]s under [[s:Constitution of India/Part VI#Chapter V .7BThe High Courts in the States for 7D|Part VI, Chapter V]], Article 214 of the Constitution.

{{multiple image|perrow = 2|total_width=400
| image1 = A building in Chennai.JPG
| image2 = Mumbai 03-2016 40 Bombay High Court.jpg
| image3 = Calcutta High Court.jpg
| image4 = Allahabad high court.jpg
| image5 = High Court of Kerala Building.jpg
| image6 = High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpg
| image7 = High Court of Telangana in Hyderabad.jpg
| image8 = Chandigarh High Court.jpg
| footer = HighCourts in [[Chennai]], [[Mumbai]], [[Kolkata]], [[Prayagaraj]], [[Kochi]], [[Bengaluru]], [[Hyderabad]] and [[Chandigarh]] respectively
}}

The High Courts are the principal civil courts of [[original jurisdiction]] in the state (along with the subordinate District Courts). However, civil and criminal jurisdiction applies only if subordinate courts are not authorized to try matters for lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. High Courts may enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters if so designated in a state or federal law. For example, company law cases are instituted only in a high court.

The primary work of most High Courts consists of deciding appeals from lower courts, and writs in terms of [[s:Constitution of India/Part VI#Article 226 .7BPower of High Courts to issue certain writs.7D|Article 226]] of the Constitution. Writ jurisdiction is also an original jurisdiction of High Courts. The precise territorial jurisdiction of each High Court varies by province.

Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of the High Court, and the state governor. The number of judges in a court is decided by dividing the average institution of main cases during the last five years by the national average, or the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that High Court, whichever is higher.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}

The [[Madras High Court]] is the oldest High Court, established on 26 June 1862, while the [[Allahabad High Court]] is the largest, consisting of 160 judges.

High Courts that handle large numbers of cases have permanent ''benches'' (or a branch of the court). For litigants of remote regions, 'circuit benches' work on those days when judges visit.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Patnaik|editor1-first=Jagadish K. |title=Mizoram – Dimensions and Perspectives: Society, Economy & Polity|date=2008|publisher=Concept Publishing Co.|location=New Delhi|isbn=9788180695148|page=444|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gBYsSafccUIC&pg=PA444|access-date=29 April 2015}}</ref>

=== District / Subordinate courts ===
{{main|District courts of India}}

The District Courts of India are established by state governments for every district or group of districts, taking into account the number of cases and population distribution. These courts are under administrative control of the state's High Court. Decisions are subject to the appeal to the High Court.<ref>[http://india.gov.in/howdo/otherservice_details.php?service=24 Check Court Judgements (JUDIS)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110205101852/http://india.gov.in/howdo/otherservice_details.php?service=24 |date= 5 February 2011 }} ''[[Government of India]]'' website.</ref>

The District Court is presided over by one District Judge appointed by the Governor with the consultation of High Court. Additional District Judges and Assistant District Judges may be appointee depending on the workload. The Additional District Judge has equivalent jurisdiction as the District Judge.<ref name="District Courts of India - official website">{{cite web|url=http://www.indiancourts.nic.in/districtcourt.html |title=District Courts of India – official website |access-date=16 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130122225727/http://indiancourts.nic.in/districtcourt.html |archive-date=22 January 2013 }}</ref> The District Judge is called a "Metropolitan sessions judge", when he is presiding over a District Court in a city which is designated a "Metropolitan area" by the state government.<ref name="CrPc Section 8 - Metropolitan areas">{{cite web | url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1663045/ | title=CrPc Section 8 – Metropolitan areas | publisher=Indian Kanoon | access-date=16 March 2012}}</ref>

The District Court has appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts on all matters. Subordinate courts, on the civil side (in ascending order) are Junior Civil Judge Court, Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Senior Civil Judge Court (also called sub-court). Subordinate courts, on the criminal side (in ascending order) are, Second Class Judicial Magistrate Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. In Family Courts deal with matrimonial disputes.

Family Court and Mahila Court matters are handled by the Principal Judge. The Judges appointed to this post are from the pool of District Judges. In [[Maharashtra]], [[Andhra Pradesh]] and some other states, judges are appointed from the pool of retired judicial officer either directly or through exam.

=== Structure of Civil Courts ===

#[[Supreme Court of India]] (apex appellate court)
#[[High courts of India|High Courts]] (highest appellate court in the states)
<big>'''Metropolitan area:'''</big>
* District Courts
** Additional District Courts
*Courts of Senior Civil Judges
*Courts of Junior Civil Judges
'''District Level:'''<br/>District level civil courts is given below (ascending order):
* [[District courts of India|District Courts]]
**Additional District Court
* Sub Courts (Courts of Subordinate judges)
**Additional Sub Courts (Courts of Additional Subordinate judges)
* [[District Munsiff Court|Munsif Court]]/ Court of Junior Civil Judge

=== Structure of Criminal Judiciary ===

#[[Supreme Court of India]] (apex appellate court)
#[[High courts of India|High Courts]] (apex appellate court in the states)
'''Metropolitan area'''
#Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts (CMM)
#[[Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates, India|Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates]] (MM)

'''District Level''' <br/>District level Criminal Courts is given below (ascending order):
* [[District courts of India|District and Sessions Court]]
**[[Sessions Court|Additional Sessions Court]]
* Assistant Sessions Court
* [[Chief Judicial Magistrate Court]] (CJM Court)
**Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court
*[[Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class]] (JFCM Court)
* [[Courts of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class]]

=== Executive Court ===

Below the judicial hierarchy sits the executive hierarchy. In pursuance of the scheme of separation of executive from the judiciary under Art 50 of the Constitution.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Madhavi |first=R |date=19 Nov 2024 |title=Hierarchy of Courts |url=https://www.mcrhrdi.gov.in/89fc/week2/L%20-%20Structure%20of%20Courts.pdf |website=MCRHRD Institute of Telangana}}</ref> [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|Cr.P.C.]] empowers the Executive Court to deal with petty offences, but the power does not imply that they hold judicial power. Section 3 of CrPC clearly splits matter to be handled by both magistrates. Section 20 of CrPC empowers the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrates (EM) in every metropolitan area and in every district. It has the authority to appoint one Executive Magistrate as the District Magistrate and to appoint any EM as the ADM. Such a magistrate has the same power as enjoyed by the [[District magistrate|District Magistrate]] (DM).

If the office of a DM is left vacant then any officer who temporarily succeeds to the executive administration of the district exercises the same power as enjoyed by the DM. The State Government is empowered to give charge of a sub-division to the EM, who is called [[Sub-Divisional Magistrate|Sub-divisional Magistrate]]. The EM role generally is to maintain law and order under section 107–110, 133, 144, 145, and 147 of the CrPC., cancelling or granting licenses, handling land acquisition matters, or any other matter raised by state government.

Section 21 empowers state government to appoint special Executive Magistrates (Sp. EM). Under Section 20(5) of Crpc, the Commissioner of Police (CP) can be appointed as EM, but only when the district is declared by state government as a Commissionerate. The DG(P) holds the rank of CP but can not exercise power of EM (special) until his designation changes into CP. The appeal of executive court lies in the court of Session Judge or Additional Session Judge of the district or to the High Court.

[[File:Executive judiciary India.png|alt=Hierarchy of Executive Judiciary of India|none|thumb|360x360px|Hierarchy of Executive Indian judiciary]]

=== Revenue Court ===
To deal with the land revenue matters, each state established a Revenue Court. These courts adjudicate matters related to:
*land revenue
*tenancy (ownership - in a loose sense)
*property boundaries 
*succession
*land transfers
*partition of holdings
*removal of encroachments, eviction of trespassers, and in some states, declaratory suits.
The Revenue Court is a quasi-judicial body and holds only limited power to deal with specific civil matters. As per Section 5(2) of Civil Procedure Code; Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to deal with suits related to rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include civil court matters. Therefore, certain matters of the Revenue Courts are barred from jurisdiction of Civil Courts as specified under the code. The Court of Additional Commissioner and above are appellate courts. However, it is a state controlled organization. Generally the officers of the rank of Collector and above ar from the pool of the Indian Administrative Service, while lower positions can be from either IAS or SAS and inferior to that are from the State Administrative Services.<ref>{{Cite web|title=UP Revenue Code|url=http://bor.up.nic.in/pdf/Proposed_Amendment_English.pdf}}</ref>

[[File:Revenue courts.png|alt=Revenue courts of India|thumb|409x409px|Revenue courts of India]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Order
!Revenue Court
!Cadre
|-
|1
|Board of Revenue
|IAS + Higher Judicial Service (HJS)<ref>{{Cite web|title=MP Land Revenue Code|url=http://www.bareactslive.com/MP/mp381.htm}}</ref> 
|-
|2
|Principal Revenue Commissioner
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |[[Indian Administrative Service]]
|- 
|3
|([[Divisional commissioner|Divisional /Revenue) Commissioner]]
|-
|4
|Additional Commissioner
| rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" |IAS / SAS (Super Senior)
|-
|5
|Commissioner Land Record 
|-
|6
| Additional Commissioner Land Record
|-
|7
|[[District magistrate|Collector]]
|-
|8
|Addl. Collector
|-
|9
|Chief Revenue Officer
|-
|10
|Sub Divisional Officer
|-
|11
|Assistant Collectors
|-
|12
|Settlement Officer
| rowspan="7" style="text-align: center;" |State Administrative Service 
(SAS)
|-
|13
|Assistant Settlement Officer
|-
|14
|Record Officer
|-
|15
|Ass. Record Officer
|-
|16
|[[Tehsildar]]s
|-
|17
| Additional Tehsildars
|-
|18
|Naib Tehsildars
|}

=== Village courts / Panchayat / Rural Court ===

Village courts, [[Lok Adalat]] (people's court) or [[Nyaya panchayat]] (justice of the villages), offer [[alternative dispute resolution]].<ref name=lay-justice-India/> They were recognized through the 1888 Madras Village Court Act, then developed (after 1935) in various provinces and (after independence) Indian states.<ref name=lay-justice-India/>

The model from Gujarat State (with a judge and two assessors) was used from the 1970s onwards.<ref name="lay-justice-India" /> In 1984 the Law Commission recommended to create Panchayats in rural areas with laymen ("having educational attainments").<ref name="lay-justice-India" /> The 2008 [[Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008|Gram Nyayalayas Act]] had foreseen 5,000 mobile courts in the country for judging petty civil (property cases) and criminal (up to 2 years of prison) cases.<ref name="lay-justice-India" /> However, the Act was not enforced, with only 151 functional Gram Nyayalayas in the country (as of May 2012) against a target of 5000.<ref name="fundcrunchtoi">{{cite news|last=Mohapatra|first=Dhananjoy|title=Funds crunch, lukewarm response mar Gram Nyayalayas|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Funds-crunch-lukewarm-response-mar-Gram-Nyayalayas/articleshow/13368644.cms|access-date=1 May 2013|newspaper=The Times of India|date=22 May 2012}}</ref> The major reasons were include financial constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.<ref name="fundcrunchtoi" />

=== Key differences between the various courts ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Court
!Sub-court
!Territorial Area
!Case Type
!Members
!Adjudication Type 
|-
|Supreme Court
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|National
|Both
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|High Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|National
|Both
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|rowspan="3" |District and Sessions Court
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|District
|Both
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Civil courts
|Sub-division/Tehsil
|Civil
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Judicial Magistrate Courts
|Sub-division/Tehsil
|Criminal
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|rowspan="3" |Metropolitan Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|Metropolitan Area
|Both
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Sub-Courts
|Metropolitan Area
|Civil
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Magistrate courts
|Metropolitan Area
|Criminal
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Rural Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|Rural
|Civil and petty Criminal
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Special Purpose Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|District/State
|Both
|Judicial only
|Order
|-
|Tribunals
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|District/State/National
|Civil
|Includes non-judicial
|Order
|-
|Consumer Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|District/State/National
|Civil
|Includes non-judicial
|Order
|-
|Lok Adalats
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|District/State/National
|Civil and petty Criminal
|Includes non-judicial
|Arbitration
|-
|Revenue Courts
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |—
|Tehsil/District/State
|Both
|non-judicial
|Order
|}

== Compensation ==
=== Supreme Court and High Court judges ===

The Supreme Court and High Court judges are paid from the Consolidated fund.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} The Supreme Court judges (Salaries and Condition) Act deals with the compensation for Supreme Court judges<ref>{{Cite web|title=Supreme Court Judges Salary Act|url=http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1958-41.pdf}}</ref> while the High Court Judges (Salaries and Condition) Act (1954) regulate the compensation of High Court judges.<ref>{{Cite web|title=High Court Judges Salary Act|url=http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1954-28.pdf}}</ref> Whenever compensation is amended, the Central Government must present it as a normal bill before Parliament.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Latest Pay Hike|date=30 January 2018|url=https://www.livemint.com/Politics/AsXcXeQmcRFXyeRrn8huGP/SC-judges-salary-hiked-to-Rs25-lakh-Chief-Justice-of-India.html}}</ref>

===Subordinate judiciary ===

NJPC decides the pay scale, allowances, facilities, etc. for subordinate judiciaries throughout the country.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Judicial Pay Commission|url=https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1602299|language=en}}</ref> This commission was set up by the Government to comply with a Supreme Court order. The recommendations of NJPC, when accepted by the Supreme Court (after hearing any objection of Central or State Govt.), become binding The commission was set up based on recommendations from All Indian Judges Association.<ref name="auto"/> The Chief Justice of India recommended that the central government constitute a permanent body to avoid unnecessary delays.

The first National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC) was constituted on 21 March 1996 on the order of Supreme Court in the landmark judgment ''All India Judges Association v UOI''. The commission was headed by Justice K. J. Shetty (Ex- Supreme Court Judge). The commission submitted its report in 1999. It recommended raising the salaries of the subordinate judiciary and fixed their overall compensation. Ten years later, the second NJPC was headed by P.V. Reddi (Ex-Judge SC).

=== Position and designation held by Judges (in hierarchy) in their career and pay scale ===
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible"
|-
!Rank
!District / Field Posting
!State / High Court Posting
!Central / Supreme Court Posting
!Pay Matrix  
|-
|1
| rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" |—
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |—
|[[Chief Justice of India]]
|{{INRConvert|280000|lk=yes}}
|-
|2
|[[List of sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India|Justice of the Supreme Court]]
|rowspan="2" style="text-align: |{{INRConvert|250000|lk=yes}} 
|-
|3
|[[List of current Indian chief justices|Chief Justice of State]]
|rowspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |—
|-
|4
|[[List of sitting judges of High Courts of India|Justice of the High Court]]
|{{INRConvert|225000|lk=yes}} 
|-
|5
|
* [[District courts of India|(Principal) District and Sessions Judge]]  
* Judicial Commissioner**
|
* Registrar General and Registrar at High Courts<ref>{{Cite web|title=Administrative Setup of High Court|url=https://mphc.gov.in/administrative-setup}}</ref>
* [[Principal secretary (India)|Principal Secretary]] to State<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.upvidhansabhaproceedings.gov.in/principal-secretary|title=Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (UPLA): Principal Secretary|website=www.upvidhansabhaproceedings.gov.in|access-date=2019-12-15|archive-date=1 September 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190901030158/http://www.upvidhansabhaproceedings.gov.in/principal-secretary|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.mp.gov.in/en|title=Home &#124; Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh|website=www.law.mp.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.bih.nic.in/ |title=Home |website=law.bih.nic.in}}</ref>
|
* [[Secretary to the Government of India|(Law) Secretary to the Government of India**]]<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/serving-sessions-judge-appointed-as-the-union-law-secretary/articleshow/71586832.cms|title=For the first time, serving judge appointed Union Law Secretary|date=2019-10-21|work=The Economic Times|access-date=2019-12-15}}</ref>
* Secretary General** and Registrar at Supreme Court of India<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/registry-officers |title=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>

| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center;"|{{INRConvert|144840|lk=yes}} - 
{{INRConvert|224100|lk=yes}}<ref>{{Cite web|title = Judicial officer's Pay hike w.e.for 1 Jan 2016|date=27 July 2022 |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-courts-directs-pay-hike-for-judicial-officers-across-country-with-arrears-as-per-commission-reccomendations}}</ref>
|-
|6
|
* [[District courts of India|(Additional) District and Sessions Judge]] / Additional Judicial Commissioner***
|
* Addl. Registrar at High Courts
* [[Legal advice|Legal advisor]] / Special Secretary to State Government, Governor of State<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/Officers.aspx?CID=8|title=The High Court of Judicature at Patna|website=www.patnahighcourt.gov.in}}</ref>
|
* Additional /Joint Registrar at Supreme Court of India<ref>{{Cite web|title=Deputation of Judges at Hon'ble Supreme Court|url=http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/admin/deputation.html}}</ref>
* Additional or Joint Law Secretary of India
|-
|7
|
* [[Chief Judicial Magistrate Court|Chief Judicial Magistrate]] / [[Courts of Metropolitan Magistrate|Chief Metropolitan Magistrate]]
* Sub-Judge / Civil Judge (Senior Division)
|
* Joint / Deputy Registrar at High Court
* Joint Secretary / Law Officer to State
|
* Deputy / Special Registrar at Supreme Court
* Deputy Secretary / OSD to Government of India<ref>{{Cite web|title=Posting in Centre|url=http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/District/Officer/2163.html}}</ref>
|{{INRConvert|111000|lk=yes}} - {{INRConvert|194660|lk=yes}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Proposed perks of Judges in India|url=https://aijopc.nic.in/Annexure1InterimReport.pdf}}</ref>
|-
|8
|
* [[Chief magistrate|Judicial Magistrate 1st Class]] / [[Courts of Metropolitan Magistrate|Metropolitan Magistrate]] (in Metropolitan area)
* [[District Munsiff Court|District Munsif]] / Civil Judge (Junior Division)
|
*Assistant Registrar at High Court
*Under Secretary to State Government 
|
* N/A
|{{INRConvert|77840|lk=yes}} - {{INRConvert|163030|lk=yes}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Proposed pay of sub-ordinate judges in India|url=https://aijopc.nic.in/Volume%20I%20(Chapter%201%20&%202)%20222%20Pages.pdf}}</ref>
|-
! colspan="5" |Notes
|-
| colspan="5" |
(1) Due to less volume of cases under the JM 2 jurisdictions many states rather than discounting have converted (not officially but practically) the Court of JM 2nd Class into training or probations post. Its period is max. 1yr to 3yr (differs state to state). It helps HC & States in (I)Testing their fitness, skills & knowledge by:-(II) Disposing of pending minor issues along with training, (III) Save extra time & expenditures and on the basis of results, their services are confirmed then they are posted as JM 1st Class or Civil Judge. It is to be noted that during training they get only basic pay i.e., ₹77840 (in few states DA too) and perks & benefits provided post confirmation.<br />(2) The posts of Judicial Commissioners and Additional Judicial Commissioners existed pre-Independence and continued till the enactment of [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|CrPC]] in 1973 in many parts of the India. Pre-separation, these posts were held either by the members of the Indian Civil (Administrative) Services (in the level of Chief Secretary) or District Judges (in the level of Super Time Scale). But now the courts of Judicial Commissioners has been completely abolished and replaced with the post of District and Sessions Judge & Additional District Judge (except in one district).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/ranchi|title=Ranchi/District Court in India &#124; Official Website of District Court of India|website=districts.ecourts.gov.in}}</ref> However currently, [[Ranchi district|Ranchi, Jharkhand]] is the only district in India where the post of JC & AJCs still exists but it has now been presided only by the members of the Higher Judicial Services of Jharkhand Judiciary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/ranchiformerjc|title=Former Judicial Commissioners/पूर्व न्यायायुक्त/District Court in India &#124; Official Website of District Court of India|website=districts.ecourts.gov.in}}</ref>
<br />
(3)The Secretary General of SC of India is the deputation post of District Judge cadre officers in the rank of Secretary to Govt. of India and they receive same pay and perks as admissible to Secretary of Govt. of India. Similarly Registrars & similar posts are in the rank of Additional Secretary & Joint Secretary to GoI. Also the GoI has now started recognising deputation judicial post under them for the members of district judicial services at all level by reserving many legal positions at the level of Assistant Secretary to Secretary scale. One recent example is former law secretary of India was from Delhi Higher Judicial Service. It is to be noted that the Secretary of Govt. of India only holds equivalent pay scale with Hon'ble Judges of High Courts but not equivalent rank or status.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/table_of_precedence.pdf|title=Indian Order of Precedence}}</ref><br />
|}

=== Career progression===
A judicial officer typically begins his or her career as a civil judge in a [[Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class|Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class]] (JMFC). After seven years of experience judges can be appointed to the post of District Judge via a competitive examination. The retirement age for the judicial officers is 60 years in the Subordinate (District) court, 62 years in the High Courts, and 65 in the Supreme Court.

All officers belonging to the Judicial Services, from entry-level to topmost position, falls under Group-A (Gazetted) Service. Entry-level positions in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class are generally considered probationary, or training posts. After completing the probationary assignment, a candidate is posted either as Judicial Magistrate of First Class in the criminal side, or in the [[District Munsiff Court]] for civil appointments. Unlike many Indian Union civil service officer positions, judicial roles are mostly field positions. In order to allow officers to diversify their experience, many deputy posts answering to higher judiciary officers were created. Officers are not initially placed in these deputy roles, but after several years of courtroom experience they may receive such an appointment.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} After five years in the junior division, an officer is eligible to be promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division).

In 1996, the first National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC), popularly known as the Shetty Commission was created by Supreme Court Justice K.J. Shetty to examine the issues of subordinate judiciaries and set uniform service conditions. The first NJPC introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme in order to assure subordinate judicial officers of benefits in the event of delayed career progression. According to the ACP scheme, if an officer's promotion is delayed, after a span of five years of service in their respective grade they are entitled to receive the first stage of the increased ACP pay scale for the next five years. If they are not promoted for another five years, their pay scale under the ACP is increased accordingly. In 2017, the 2nd NJPC revised the pay and service conditions of subordinate judiciaries with the objective to attract talent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SNJPC |url=https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1602299}}</ref>

The same methodology is applied at the level of District Judge. After completing the required service in the senior division the High Court, with the consent of the Governor of the respective state, they are eligible for promotion to the cadre of entry level District Judge or Additional District and Session Judge (ADJ). When District Judges are vested with administrative power, they are known as Principal District and Session Judges.

The officers of Junior and Senior division are subordinate to the District and Session Judges and also to CJMs. ADJs are under the general control of their respective high courts. Specific judicial officers are vested with certain special powers as Special Judges or Magistrates to deal with specific matters regarding their areas of practice (e.g. railway, MP-MLA-Ministers, Terrorism, or other specific departments), as needed.

One-third of High Court judges are filled from the Subordinate Judiciary. High Court and Supreme Court judges are Constitutional posts, and have strict processes for appointment that take more time. Several Supreme Court judges were promoted from the Subordinate Judiciary. Most judicial officers appointed directly from the bar as a District Judge or in areas of higher judicial service (HJS) have a chance of promotion to the High Court, and potentially to the Supreme Court.

Various departments and ministries were created by state and union government to broaden the experience of judicial officers. State government-created positions range from undersecretary to principal secretary. Union ministries include Deputy Secretary posts, which typically answer to officers in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Temporary deputy posts for officers of certain judicial rankings provide similar perks and career allowances to comparable civil servants. The most common departments involving deputations of judicial officers at civil secretarial posts are- Law and Justice Ministry, Legal Affairs Department, and Legislative Department.

== Judicial academies ==

The institute{{clarify|date=July 2022|reason=What institute?}} provides training to Subordinate Judiciary officers on topics that State Judicial Academies do not cover. It also offers training to High Court judges of states and judges and judicial officers of other nations. Indian judicial academies:<ref name="National Judicial Academy"/>
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Academy National / State
|-
|[[National Judicial Academy (India)|National Judicial Academy]] 
|-
|Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy
|-
|Judicial Academy Assam and North Eastern Judicial Officers' Training Institute (NEJOTI)
|-
|Bihar Judicial Academy 
|-
|Chhattisgarh State Judicial Academy
|-
|Gujarat State Judicial Academy
|-
|Chandigarh Judicial Academy
|-
|Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy
|-
|Judicial Academy Jharkhand
|-
|Karnataka Judicial Academy
|-
|Kerala Judicial Academy
|-
|Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy
|-
|Maharashtra Judicial Academy and Indian Mediation Centre and Training Institute
|-
|Manipur Judicial Academy
|-
|Meghalaya Judicial Academy
|-
|Odisha Judicial Academy
|-
|Rajasthan State Judicial Academy 
|-
|Sikkim Judicial Academy
|-
|Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy 
|-
|[https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Name%20change%20TS%20Judicial%20Academy.pdf Telangana State Judicial Academy] 
|-
|Tripura Judicial Academy 
|-
|Judicial Training Institute, Uttar Pradesh
|-
|Uttarakhand Judicial and Legal Academy
|-
|[[West Bengal Judicial Academy]]
|}

==Criticism and controversies==
According to the [[World Bank]], "although India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary"<ref name="Governance in India">{{cite web | url=http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/EXTSAREGTOPPRISECDEV/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:20584873~menuPK:496677~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:496671,00.html | title=Governance in India | publisher=World Bank | access-date=21 January 2012}}</ref>

Citizens are, after many negative experiences, often unaware of their rights, or resigned to their fate before an inefficient court.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Unninayar|first1=Indira|title=The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves|url=http://www.financialexpress.com/article/fe-columnist/the-fault-lies-not-in-our-stars-but-in-ourselves/244315/|access-date=28 April 2016|work=The Financial Express|date=28 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160430013654/http://www.financialexpress.com/article/fe-columnist/the-fault-lies-not-in-our-stars-but-in-ourselves/244315/|archive-date=30 April 2016}}</ref> Court efficiency is crucial, as a backlog of cases creates opportunities for corruption.<ref name="Transparency International Annual Report 2010 ">{{cite web|url=http://www.transparency.org/publications/annual_report |title=Transparency International Annual Report 2010 |publisher=Transparency International |access-date=21 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115192437/http://www.transparency.org/publications/annual_report |archive-date=15 January 2012 }}</ref>

Judiciary issues have been depicted in several films, such as ''[[Court (2014 film)|Court]]''.

===Backlog===
{{Main|Pendency of court cases in India}}

The Indian judiciary is overburdened far beyond capacity with a backlog of cases.<ref name="Yasir 2024">{{cite web |last1=Yasir |first1=Sameer |last2=Scholiers |first2=Elke |title='A Lifelong Nightmare': Seeking Justice in India's Overwhelmed Courts |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/world/asia/india-judicial-backlog.html |website=The New York Times |date=13 January 2024}}</ref>  Nearly 1,82,000 cases have been pending for over 30 years. According to National Judicial Data Grid, Indian courts had 27% rise in backlog between December 2019 and April 2022.<ref name="clogged-state-of-judiciary">{{cite news |last=Sumeda |title=Explained The clogged state of the Indian judiciary |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-judiciary-pendency-data-courts-statistics-explain-judges-ramana-chief-justiceundertrials/article65378182.ece |access-date=2022-08-26 |work=The Hindu |date=2022-05-10}}</ref>

In 2024 India's ratio of judges to population is 21 per million people, which is one of the lowest in the world.<ref name="Yasir 2024"/> In 2002, the [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)|Ministry of Law and Justice]] set a goal of increasing that number to 50.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Ministry of Law and Justice |author1-link=Ministry of Law and Justice (India) |title=PIB Press Releases |url=https://archive.pib.gov.in/archive/releases98/lyr2002/rdec2002/10122002/r101220022.html |website=archive.pib.gov.in |publisher=[[Press Information Bureau]] |date=10 December 2002}}</ref> For comparison, the United States as 120.<ref name="Yasir 2024"/> At the current rate, it would take 300 years for the courts to resolve current cases.<ref name="Yasir 2024"/> Many people have cases pending for decades.<ref name="Yasir 2024"/> As of May 2022, India has a sanctioned strength of 25,628 judges with 4.7 crore(47 million) cases pending in judiciary.

The legal maxim ''[[justice delayed is justice denied]]'' is honored only in the breach. On average about 20% of approved judicial positions are vacant. The annual backlog increase is less than 2%. If the vacancies were filled, the backlog would decline.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/justice-can-be-delivered-in-reasonable-time/|title=Justice can be delivered in reasonable time|newspaper=The Times of India |date=3 November 2015|access-date=2 July 2017 |last1=Gandhi |first1=Shailesh }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews.htm|title=Supreme Court of India – History|website=supremecourtofindia.nic.in|access-date=2 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151031070901/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews.htm|archive-date=31 October 2015}}</ref> Minor infractions make up nearly half of pending cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report No. 245 (July 2014) – Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower|url=http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report245.pdf#page=24|publisher=Law Commission of India|access-date=29 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Sharma|first1=Pankaj|title=HC meet to clear backlog|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120702/jsp/northeast/story_15678940.jsp#.VT_RxizhWeI|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924152428/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120702/jsp/northeast/story_15678940.jsp#.VT_RxizhWeI|url-status=dead|archive-date=24 September 2015|access-date=28 April 2015|work=The Telegraph, Calcutta|date=2 July 2012}}</ref>

In 2015, some 400 vacancies were reported in the 24 high courts. The Supreme Court backlog is 70,572 as of May 2, 2022.<ref name="clogged-state-of-judiciary" /> Some 30 million cases await resolution in various courts. The budget allocation is a 0.2 per cent of [[gross domestic product]]. The judge-population ratio is 10.5 to one million, about 20% of the recommended 50 to one million.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/new-cji-has-his-task-cut-out-115110500027_1.html|title=New CJI has his task cut out|first=M. J.|last=Antony|date=5 November 2015|access-date=2 July 2017|work=Business Standard}}</ref>

The government is the largest single litigant, adding cases to the docket, losing most, and then appealing to the next court.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gupta|first1=Suresh C.|title=Government Litigation and Supreme Court|journal=Supreme Court Cases|volume=(1996) 5 SCC (Jour) 12|publisher=Eastern Book Company|url=http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/96v5a2.htm|access-date=10 November 2015}}</ref> The Law Commission found that most such appeals were pointless.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Kasturi|first1=Kannan (25 March 2008)|title=Justice Delayed: Government itself to blame for backlog of cases|url=http://indiatogether.org/litigant-government|website=indiatogether|date=25 March 2008|access-date=10 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Seth|first1=Leila|title=Talking of Justice:People's Rights in Modern India|date=2014|publisher=Aleph|location=New Delhi|isbn=9789383064823|page=115|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XYa7BwAAQBAJ&pg=PT115|access-date=10 November 2015}}</ref>

Jagdev claimed that the judiciary does not attract the best legal talent in part because of disparity in compensation. In recent years scandals have besmirched the judiciary's reputation. The subordinate judiciary works in appalling conditions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beyondnews.org/indian-judiciary-does-our-system-necessitate-promote-vigilantism-mob-justice-rich-vs-poor-immediate-closure-vs-denied-justice/|title=Indian Judiciary – Does our system promote mob justice? Rich Vs Poor, Immediate Closure vs Denied justice|author=Karan Jagdev|work=Beyond News}}</ref>

On 12 January 2012, the Supreme Court said that confidence in the judiciary was decreasing, posing a threat to the country. It acknowledged the problems of vacancies in trial courts, unwillingness of lawyers to become judges, and the failure of the apex judiciary in filling vacant HC posts. One proposal is that access to justice must be made a [[Constitutional right]] requiring the executive to provide the necessary infrastructure for protecting that right. The Court also wanted the Government of India to detail the work being done by the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms.<ref name="Supreme Court chides itself, govt for judicial backlog">{{cite news | url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-chides-itself-govt-for-judicial-backlog/articleshow/11456652.cms | archive-url=https://archive.today/20130126044623/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-12/india/30619133_1_hc-judges-trial-courts-ad-hoc-judges | archive-date=26 January 2013 | title=Supreme Court chides itself, govt for judicial backlog | date=12 January 2012<!--, 05.57&nbsp;am IST -->| agency=Times News Network | work=[[The Times of India]] | url-status=live | access-date=11 January 2012}}</ref><ref name="Reforms could see disposal of cases in three years">{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2129739.ece | title=Reforms could see disposal of cases in three years | work=The Hindu | date=24 June 2011 | access-date=11 January 2012}}</ref><ref name="Government sets up National Mission for Justice Delivery">{{cite news | url=http://www.firstpost.com/fwire/government-sets-up-national-mission-for-justice-delivery-52488.html | title=Government sets up National Mission for Justice Delivery | date=2 August 2011 | work=First Post | access-date=11 January 2012}}</ref>

Undertrials outnumber convicts in the prison population. Ordinary citizens have been imprisoned for espionage for overstaying their visa or straying across international borders, languishing in prison for years due to the slow redressal process.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2012/43/ws-nowhereman.html Your World: The Nowhere Man], Rupa Jha, 21 October 2012, BBC (retr 2012 10 20) (Program link:[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00z57wt The Nowhere Man])</ref> According to Prison Statistics- India 2015, 67.2% of the total prison population of India is under trial, which means they have not yet(by 2015) been convicted by the court.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bhandari |first1=Vrinda |title=India's criminal justice system: An example of justice delayed, justice denied |url=https://www.firstpost.com/long-reads/indias-criminal-justice-system-an-example-of-justice-delayed-justice-denied-3475630.html/amp |access-date=2022-08-26 |work=Firstpost |date=2017-05-26}}</ref>

To reduce pendency, 'Fast-track courts', 'Evening courts/Morning courts' were set up and met with mixed success.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Thevar|first1=Velly|title=Oh, What a Terrible Morning!|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110420/jsp/opinion/story_13876676.jsp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095632/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110420/jsp/opinion/story_13876676.jsp|url-status=dead|archive-date=4 March 2016|access-date=28 April 2015|work=The Telegraph, Calcutta|date=20 April 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|publisher=Minister of Law & Justice|title=Starred Question No. 80 – Reforms in Judicial System, Answered on 29 July 2010 |url=http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/QResult15.aspx?qref=94676|archive-url=https://archive.today/20150428200748/http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/QResult15.aspx?qref=94676|archive-date=2015-04-28|website=Lok Sabha, Parliament of India|access-date=28 April 2015}}</ref> Mobile courts were set up to bring 'justice at the doorsteps'<ref>{{cite news|title=Cutting India's legal backlog on the move|url=http://tribune.com.pk/story/36687/cutting-indias-legal-backlog-on-the-move/|access-date=28 April 2015|work=The Express Tribune, Pakistan|agency=Agence France-Presse|date=7 August 2010}}</ref> of litigants of judge-poor rural areas.<ref>{{cite news|title=Punjab gets its first mobile court|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/punjab-gets-its-first-mobile-court/article1922490.ece|access-date=28 April 2015|work=The Hindu|agency=Press Trust of India|date=3 October 2007}}</ref>

''Lok Adalats'' is an informal, alternative mechanism that has been a success in tackling backlogs, especially in pre-litigation matters, settling cases before they enter the courts.<ref>{{cite news|title=National Lok Adalat disposes 10.25&nbsp;million cases |url=http://www.timesofoman.com/News/43789/Article-National-Lok-Adalat-disposes-10%2025-million-cases |work=The Times of Oman |access-date=28 April 2015 |date=6 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610152423/http://www.timesofoman.com/News/43789/Article-National-Lok-Adalat-disposes-10%2025-million-cases |archive-date=10 June 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Lok Adalats dispose of over 2 lakh family, labour cases|url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/471177/lok-adalats-dispose-over-2.html|access-date=28 April 2015|work=Deccan Herald|date=29 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Lok adalats dispose 8.80 lakh cases |url=http://www.freepressjournal.in/lok-adalats-dispose-8-80-lakh-cases/ |access-date=28 April 2015 |work=The Free Press Journal |date=16 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151216022906/http://www.freepressjournal.in/lok-adalats-dispose-8-80-lakh-cases/ |archive-date=16 December 2015 }}</ref>

According to a report released by Centre for Public Policy Research and British Deputy High Commission "a total of 16,884 commercial disputes [are] pending in High Courts with original jurisdiction. Of these Madras High court tops with 5,865. With the number of commercial disputes growing rapidly, facilitating a seamless dispute resolution system through alternate means has become crucial."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2017/jun/21/max-trade-dispute-pendency-in-madras-hc-1619058.html|title=Max trade dispute pendency in Madras HC|work=The New Indian Express|access-date=24 November 2017}}</ref>

Economists Boehm and Oberfeld calculated that the backlog costs the Indian economy several percentage points of GDP.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boehm |first1=Johannes |last2=Oberfield |first2=Ezra |date=November 2020 |title=Misallocation in the Market for Inputs: Enforcement and the Organization of Production |journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics |volume=135 |issue=4 |pages=2007–2058 |doi=10.1093/qje/qjaa020 |hdl=10.1093/qje/qjaa020 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

===Judicial corruption===
According to [[Transparency International]], judicial corruption in India is attributable to factors such as "delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws".<ref>{{cite web|title=India Corruption Study 2005|url=http://www.transparencyindia.org/resource/survey_study/India%20Corruption%20Study%202005.pdf#page=113|publisher=Transparency International India|access-date=28 April 2015}}</ref> Corruption has reached the Supreme Court. Notable cases include:
* In December 2009, legal activist and lawyer [[Prashant Bhushan]] stated in court, "out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt"<ref name="'My Honest And Bonafide Perception'">{{cite news | url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263230 | title=My Honest And Bonafide Perception | work=outlook india | date=9 December 2009 | access-date=21 January 2012}}</ref><ref name="Six corrupt CJIs named by Prashant Bhushan">{{cite news | url=http://canarytrap.in/2010/10/06/six-corrupt-cjis-named-by-prashant-bhushan/ | title=Six corrupt CJIs named by Prashant Bhushan | work=canarytrap.in | date=6 October 2010 | access-date=21 January 2012}}</ref> In November 2010, former Law Minister, [[Shanti Bhushan]] echoed [[Prashant Bhushan]]'s claim.<ref name="Shanti Bhushan makes news again">{{cite news|url=http://barandbench.com/brief/2/1100/shanti-bhushan-makes-news-again-says-he-would-rather-go-to-jail-than-apologize-for-leveling-corruption-charges-against-judiciary |title=Shanti Bhushan makes news again |work=Bar & Bench |date=11 November 2010 |access-date=21 January 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130117213040/http://barandbench.com/brief/2/1100/shanti-bhushan-makes-news-again-says-he-would-rather-go-to-jail-than-apologize-for-leveling-corruption-charges-against-judiciary |archive-date=17 January 2013 }}</ref>
* There have been allegations that judges with doubtful integrity were elevated within the higher judiciary and campaigns held for their impeachment.<ref name="Wrong people sometimes elevated to higher judiciary: Ex-CJI Verma">{{cite news | url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-27/india/29708763_1_higher-judiciary-js-verma-cji | archive-url=https://archive.today/20130103085848/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-27/india/29708763_1_higher-judiciary-js-verma-cji | archive-date=3 January 2013 | title=Wrong people sometimes elevated to higher judiciary: Ex-CJI Verma | date=27 June 2011 | work=[[The Times of India]] | access-date=21 January 2012}}</ref>
* In 2011, [[Soumitra Sen]], former judge at the [[Calcutta High Court]] became the first judge in the India to be impeached by the [[Rajya Sabha]] for misappropriation of funds.<ref name="SoumitraSen" />
* In November 2011, a former Supreme Court Justice [[Ruma Pal]] slammed the higher judiciary for what she called the seven sins. She listed the sins as:<ref name="Former Indian Supreme Court Justice Examines Corruption in the Judiciary">{{cite news | url=http://www.fairobserver.com/article/former-indian-supreme-court-justice-examines-corruption-judiciary | title=Former Indian Supreme Court Justice Examines Corruption in the Judiciary | work=Fair Observer | date=18 November 2011 | access-date=21 January 2012}}</ref>
** Turning a blind eye to the injudicious conduct of a colleague.
** Hypocrisy – the distortion of the norm of judicial independence.
**Secrecy – lack of transparency in the appointment of judges to the High and Supreme Court 
**Plagiarism and prolixity – SC judges often lift whole passages from earlier decisions without acknowledgement – and use long-winded, verbose language
**Arrogance – the higher judiciary has claimed superiority and independence to mask their own indiscipline and transgression of norms and procedures
**Professional arrogance and incompetence – judges arrive at decisions of grave importance ignoring precedent or judicial principle
**Nepotism – wherein favors are sought and dispensed by some judges.

In March 2025, large bundles of cash, some burnt, were found in the house of [[Delhi High Court]] Judge Yashwant Varma by the fire department, after a fire was reported at his house, reigniting a major controversy on judicial corruption.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/justice-yashwant-varma-delhi-high-court-cash-discovery-b2720491.html|title= Controversy erupts in India as wads of cash found at High Court judge’s home}}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea seeking an FIR against Varma following the expose.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cash-at-home-row-sc-refuses-urgent-mentioning-of-plea-seeking-fir-against-yashwant-varma/articleshow/119546483.cms|title= Cash-at-home row: SC refuses urgent mentioning of plea seeking FIR against Yashwant Varma}}</ref> Despite the demands to have him removed and suspended, Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, sparking a backlash from lawyers and other judges.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.timesnownews.com/india/why-this-oath-is-not-notified-to-bar-justice-yashwant-varmas-oath-taking-in-clandestine-manner-raises-questions-article-151354927|title= 'Why Not Notified': Allahabad Bar Association Raises Question on Justice Yashwant Varma's Oath-taking in 'Clandestine' Manner}}</ref>

===Nepotism ===
{{anchor | Representation in Judiciary | Uncle }}

'''Uncle judge syndrome''' is a [[nepotism|nepotistic]] phenomenon in the Indian judiciary where the [[collegium system]], the opaque system of which the incumbent judges of the Supreme Court of India appoint new judges, is misused to appoint family and relatives of the judges. In 2017, the Supreme Court had recognised the rot of the collegium, but as of 2025 little has been done to fix it.<ref>[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-plus/law/supreme-court-wants-to-get-rid-of-uncle-judges-syndrome-can-it/articleshow/117192065.cms Supreme Court wants to get rid of ‘uncle judges’ syndrome. Can it?], Times of India, 13 Jan 2025.</ref> In 2015, a research by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara claims that around 50% of the High Court judges and 33% of the Supreme Court judges are family members of those in higher echelons of judiciary, with six Supreme Court judges were sons of former judges and over 88 High Court judges were either born to a family of lawyers, judges, or worked under some legal luminaries.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2015-06-19 |title=50% HC judges related to senior judicial members: Report |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/50-hc-judges-related-to-senior-judicial-members-report/story-S8RP2Ir9cEuIN4NewFnvML.html |access-date=2022-11-09 |website=Hindustan Times |language=en}}</ref> While in 2022, former Minister of State for Human Resource Development [[Upendra Kushwaha]] noted that judges of Supreme Court so far have come only from 250-300 families, and there is negligible representation of women and Scheduled Castes in the higher judiciary.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-12-12 |title=Only 250-300 families have sent judges to SC: Upendra Kushwaha |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/only-250-300-families-have-sent-judges-to-sc-upendra-kushwaha-4978701/ |access-date=2022-11-09 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> The Parliament of India attempted to abolish the collegium system in 2014 by establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission through the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and the [[Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India|Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014]]. However, in October 2015, the Act and the Constitutional amendment was struck down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66970168/ |access-date=26 June 2021 |website=Indian Kanoon}}</ref>

===Judicial incompetence, aristocracy and double standards===

The Indian judiciary has been stated to be notoriously incompetent in several cases, as well as having an aristocratic mindset of superiority.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/criticising-the-courts-1227613.html|title= Criticising the courts}}</ref> For this reason, criticizing the judiciary has been considered as a contempt of court. This reduces the faith of the citizens on the judiciary because of such mindsets of judges, who are not open to criticism for erroneous and irresponsible judgements.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.dw.com/en/india-supreme-court-open-to-criticism/a-54861572|title= India's top court in spotlight over handling of criticism|website= [[Deutsche Welle]]}}</ref> Additionally, several male judges have granted bail to culprits accused of rape, showcasing misogyny and patriarchal mindsets, further fueling distrust.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/gauhati-high-court-bail-iit-guwahati-student-accused-rape-future-assets-1844246-2021-08-23|title= Future assets: Gauhati HC grants bail to IIT-Guwahati student accused of rape|date= 23 August 2021}}</ref>

In some cases, several judgements by some judges have earned backlash from senior and experienced judges, as well as media houses. Such backlashes have led to such judges to be dismissed by the bar council, or forcing them to resign. On 19 February 2022, [[Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala]], an additional judge for the [[Bombay High Court]], was forced to resign after a series of poor judgements in several sexual assault cases, before she could be made permanent.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|date=2022-02-11|title=Denied elevation, judge who gave 'no skin-to-skin contact' order resigns|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/denied-elevation-judge-who-gave-no-skin-to-skin-contact-order-resigns-7766888/|access-date=2022-02-11|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref> To improve the situation of the judiciary in India, Advocate Juhi Damodar and [[Edmond Fernandes|Dr Edmond Fernandes]] pointed out by the Indian Judiciary needed serious capacity building at all levels.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Damodar |first=Dr Edmond Fernandes and Juhi |title=Indian judiciary needs serious capacity building |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/indian-judiciary-needs-serious-capacity-building/ |access-date=2024-03-13 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257}}</ref> Former Chief Justice of India, [[Ranjan Gogoi]], called the judiciary ramshackled and stated it was useless going to courts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Service |first=Express News |date=2021-02-14 |title=Judiciary ramshackled, going to court is useless: Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/Feb/14/judiciary-ramshackled-going-to-court-is-useless-ex-cji-ranjan-gogoi-2263698.html |access-date=2024-04-07 |website=The New Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

The judiciary has also been criticized for double standards on certain matters, such as insensitive comments against a particular group of people in the society, especially against women. Despite complaints against political figures making such comments, they are rarely given jail time, disqualified from holding any official positions, or receiving summons or arrest warrants.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/up-court-summons-mulayam-singh-over-rape-remark/article7566027.ece|title=UP court summons Mulayam Singh over rape remark|first=Mohammad |last=Ali|work=The Hindu|access-date=4 September 2015}}</ref> Furthermore, it is easier for them to obtain bail, which does not get canceled at all, allowing them to conduct political activities.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/difficult-to-cancel-lalus-bail-after-4-years-supreme-court/articleshow/104507671.cms|title= Difficult to cancel Lalu Prasad's bail after 4 years: Supreme Court}}</ref> The judiciary has subsequently faced flak for being pro-rich and anti-poor in certain cases, due to which public outrage has intensified, especially in cases of rape and murder.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Phadke |first=Manasi |date=2024-05-25 |title=Pune Porsche case wouldn't have taken a U-turn for the rich family if not for public outrage |url=https://theprint.in/opinion/newsmaker-of-the-week/pune-porsche-case-wouldnt-have-taken-a-u-turn-for-the-rich-family-if-not-for-public-outrage/2100699/ |access-date=2024-05-26 |website=ThePrint |language=en-US}}</ref>

During the [[2025 India–Pakistan conflict]] that occurred after the [[2025 Pahalgam attack|Pahalgam terrorist attack]], the judicial system came under fire for hypocritical judgments. In one case, a Muslim teenage student from Pune Khadija Sheikh, who posted about criticism of Operation Sindoor on social media and supported Pakistan, was expelled from the institution and arrested under various sections of [[Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita]], following which she approached the [[Bombay High Court]] and was granted bail.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bombay-hc-grants-bail-to-pune-student-arrested-for-post-on-indo-pak-conflict-101748346196808.html|title= Bombay HC grants bail to Pune student arrested for post on Indo-Pak conflict}}</ref> In another case, Sharmistha Panoli, a law student and influencer, also from Pune, who uploaded a video [[Anti-Pakistan sentiment|criticizing Pakistan]] with profanities, was arrested by the [[Kolkata Police]] under charges of hurting religious sentiments, and was denied bail by the [[Calcutta High Court]]. The decision to deny bail to Panoli received criticism from the [[Bar Council of India]], who seeked her release.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bar-council-of-india-chairman-manan-kumar-mishra-seeks-release-fair-trial-for-sharmishta-panoli-2734163-2025-06-02|title= Assault on free speech: Bar Council of India seeks release of Sharmishta Panoli}}</ref> As a result of these 2 cases apart from many others, the Indian Judicial system received widespread condemnation for religious appeasement from political circles.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/secularism-must-be-a-two-way-street-pawan-kalyan-slams-arrest-of-pune-law-student-calls-for-equal-stand-on-blasphemy/articleshow/121546199.cms|title= Secularism must be a two way street: Pawan Kalyan slams arrest of Pune law student, calls for equal stand on blasphemy}}</ref>

=== Anti-women judgements ===

The Indian judiciary has faced fire from several women's rights activists, media outlets, as well as lawyers for making absurd decisions regarding crimes against women, despite laws to protect them from severe crimes like rape, molestation, groping, eve-teasing, and much more. In several cases, culprits have been acquitted or granted bail despite evidences and posing of risk, and that charges against them have been dropped or downgraded.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/allahabad-high-court-girl-rape-grabbing-breasts-breaking-pyjama-string-2696225-2025-03-20?utm_source=global-search&utm_medium=global-search&utm_campaign=global-search|title= Grabbing girl's breasts, breaking pyjama string not rape: High Court}}</ref> Despite demands to criminalize marital rape, where in certain cases, victims have died due to severe injuries by the sexual assault, the judiciary at every stage remains deaf to the pleas of the women and have acquitted the accused on frivolous grounds.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/chhattisgarh-high-court-marital-rape-consent-verdict-unnatural-sex-125021201243_1.html|title= Husband can't be charged for rape, unnatural sex with wife: Chhattisgarh HC}}</ref> Additionally, despite requests and pleas from lawyers of rape survivors/victims, culprits have been granted bail, which has allowed them to commit rape again or even murder their victims.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/out-on-bail-rape-accused-murders-victim-throws-body-parts-in-river-cops-7228309|title= Out On Bail, Rape Accused Murders Victim, Throws Body Parts In River: Cops}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.thequint.com/news/india/a-rape-survivor-in-unnao-uttar-pradesh-set-on-fire#read-more|title= 7 UP Policemen Suspended Following Unnao Rape Victim's Death}}</ref> The slow legal proceedings, granting of bail to culprits during trial, incompetence and insensitive statements by judges and lawyers have forced rape survivors and their kin to law in their hands and kill the accused, which has led to the judiciary being harsher on the survivors and the family members rather than the accused themselves.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/rape-accused-stabbed-to-death-by-survivor-family-her-friend-in-delhi-101713725152649.html|title= Rape accused stabbed to death by survivor, family, her friend in Delhi}}</ref> In 2002, a Kerala man named Shankara Narayanan killed his daughter's rapist and murderer after he was granted bail during trial, which outraged Narayanan.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://allindiaroundup.com/india/when-justice-failed-in-india-this-father-killed-the-man-that-murdered-and-raped-his-13-year-old-daughter/|title= When Justice Failed In India, This Father Killed The Man That Murdered And Raped His 13-Year-Old Daughter}}</ref> Narayanan surrendered to the police and was convicted by a sessions court for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and released him citing lack of evidence and grave injustice.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/12/06/when-justice-failed-in-2002-kerala-man-killed-child-rapist-murderer.html|title= When justice 'failed': In 2002, a Kerala man killed his child's rapist-murderer}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2025/04/08/shankara-narayanan-death-man-who-killed-rapist-of-daughter-krishnapriya.html|title= Shankara Narayanan, accused of murdering his daughter's alleged killer, passes away}}</ref>

In March 2021, then [[Chief Justice of India|Chief Justice]] [[Sharad Bobde]] came under intense fire and scrutiny during the hearing of anticipatory bail to a rape accused, when he asked "Will you marry her?".<ref name="Bar and Bench 01 March 2021">{{cite news|url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/will-you-marry-her-supreme-court-asks-man-charged-rape-minor-girl |title=Will you marry her? Supreme Court asks government servant charged with repeatedly raping minor girl |work=Bar And Bench|date=1 March 2021|access-date=1 March 2021}}</ref> Subsequently, women's rights and progressive groups called Bobde to step down for his insensitivity and incompetence.<ref name="The Guardian 04 March 2021">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/indias-top-judge-tells-accused-rapist-to-marry-victim-to-avoid-jail | title=India's top judge tells accused rapist to marry victim to avoid jail| date=4 March 2021}}</ref>

== E-Courts Mission Mode Project ==
The E-courts project was established in 2005 to digitalized the courts.<ref name="E-Courts">{{cite web |date=24 August 2011 |title=NIC Project Monitoring System |url=http://ecourts.nic.in |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111120123908/http://ecourts.nic.in/ |archive-date=20 November 2011 |access-date=26 November 2011 |language=en}}</ref> In 2008, all the District Courts were initialised under the project. In 2010, all District Courts were computerised. Digital services began in the Supreme Court in June 2011. The case lists and the judgements of most District Courts were available<ref>{{cite web |url=http://judis.nic.in/ |title=Home |website=judis.nic.in |access-date=7 November 2015 |archive-date=8 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408043403/http://judis.nic.in/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2006-04-08 |title=District Court Website |url=http://lobis.nic.in/ |access-date=2022-07-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060408215827/http://lobis.nic.in/ |archive-date=8 April 2006 }}</ref> Data is updated daily. Most District and Taluka Courts in the country are computerised. Cause list of each of the Court are available.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home/District Court in India {{!}} Official Website of District Court of India |url=https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/ |access-date=2022-07-23 |website=districts.ecourts.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Welcome to NJDG - National Judicial Data Grid |url=https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/index.php |access-date=2022-07-23 |website=njdg.ecourts.gov.in}}</ref>

Judicial service centres are available for all courts. The public assess case status, stage and next hearing dates.{{citation needed|date=September 2012}}

== See also ==
* [[Law of India]]
* [[Constitution of India]]
* [[Three Judges Cases]]
* [[Supreme Court of India]]
* [[Minister of Law and Justice]]
* [[Law enforcement in India]]
* [[Pendency of court cases in India]]
* [[National Judicial Appointments Commission]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120511124435/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/ecommittee/action-plan-ecourt.pdf National policy and action plan for implementation of IT in the Indian judiciary]

{{Navboxes|list=
{{Judiciary of India}}
{{Judiciaries of Asia}}
{{India topics}}
}}

[[Category:Judiciary of India| ]]
[[Category:Law of India]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India]]