In this essay we will discuss about the high courts of India. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Jurisdictions of High Courts 2. Composition of the High Court 3. Salary and Allowances of the Judges 4. Oath or Affirmation by Judges of High Courts 5. Powers and Functions of the High Courts 6. Kinds of Writs 7. Subordinate Courts in India.
List of Essays on the High Courts of India
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Jurisdictions of High Courts
- Essay on the Composition of the High Court
- Essay on the Salary and Allowances of the Judges
- Essay on the Oath or Affirmation by Judges of High Courts
- Essay on the Powers and Functions of High Courts
- Essay on the Kinds of Writs
- Essay on the Subordinate Courts in India
1. Essay on the Jurisdictions of High Courts:
Judiciary is an integral part of every federal system. It inspires confidence of the federating units on the one hand and the masses on the other. In India constitution has provided for an integrated judiciary. Under this system at the top is Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial authority in the land. Its decisions are applicable all over the country. Down below in each state is a High Court.
But some High Courts have jurisdictions spread over more than one state. High Courts have jurisdictions over their respective states, but appeals against the judgment of a High Court can lie with the Supreme Court, which can reverse any of its decision. Still down below are District Courts, both civil and criminal.
At present in India there are 18 High Courts. Jurisdiction of each High Court is as under:
Thus, it will be seen that Bombay High Court is the oldest High Court in India which was founded in 1861 followed by Allahabad High Court set up in 1866. Sikkim High Court established in 1975 is the youngest High Court in the country. Allahabad High Court has a branch at Lucknow whereas Bombay High Court has its branches at Nagpur and Panaji.
Rajasthan High Court has its branch at Jodhpur and Patna High Court at Ranchi. Madhya Pradesh High Court has its branches at Gwalior and Indore whereas Gauhati High Court has set up its branches at Imphal and Agartala.
2. Essay on the Composition of the High Court:
Under the constitution each state in India shall have a High Court which shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. In other words number of Judges will be decided by the President which even now varies from state to state depending upon the volume of the work.
Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, whereas he appoints other Judges in consultation with the concerned Governor and Chief Justice of the High Court and also Chief Justice of India. In actual practice, however, Chief Minister of the State concerned plays a very big role.
He is always consulted and his views weigh with the central government while making such appointments. Gradually an impression is being created that appointment of Judges of High Court has become a political affair. In case for any reason if the office of the Chief Justice falls vacant the President can ask one of the judges of that court to look after the duties of Chief Justice.
Qualifications for Appointment:
Any person can be appointed as Chief Justice of a State High Court provided he is an Indian citizen has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India or has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more High Courts in succession.
By Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act it was provided that any person who in the opinion of the President was an eminent jurist could also be appointed as Judge of the High Court.
But this was omitted by Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act. He should be below the age of 62. In case any dispute arises about the age of judge, the matter shall be referred to the President who shall decide it in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and his decision shall be final.
In case the work of the High Court has gone in arrears or has temporarily increased, the President can appoint Additional Judges for a period not exceeding two years, from among those who possess qualifications prescribed for a High Court Judge. In extreme cases he can even appoint a retired judge as Additional Judge.
Removal of Judges:
A judge can remain in office till he has attained the age of 62 years but he can resign his office earlier if he so likes by writing under his hand a letter of resignation addressed to the President.
He can also be removed provided an address has been presented to the President by the Parliament supported by majority of the total membership of the House in which the motion of removal has been moved and by a majority of not less than two-third of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
He shall also vacate his office when he is appointed by the President to be a judge of the Supreme Court or has been transferred to some other Court.
3. Essay on the Salary and Allowances of the Judges:
It is provided that the judges of the High Court shall draw such salaries and allowances, as the Parliament may by law fix from time to time, but until otherwise fixed those shall be as follows:
The Chief Justice Rs.9,000/- p.m.
Any other Judge Rs.8,000/- p.m.
In addition they will also be entitled to receive such other allowances as are admissible to other senior employees of the government. It is also provided that during the period of his appointment, the emoluments of a judge shall not be varied to his disadvantage, except of course when emergency conditions have been declared in the country.
Retired judges also get pension. It is provided that a retired judge cannot practice in Supreme Court or High Court of the state in which he was a permanent judge. In consultation with the Chief Justice of India, a judge of the High Court can be transferred from one court to the other in the Union Territory of India.
When the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court falls vacant or when any such Chief Justice is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of his office shall be performed by one of the other judges of the court, who may be appointed by the President, to perform such duties.
As said earlier when the work in the High Court has increased, in order to cope with the increased volume of work, the President may appoint any qualified person as temporary judge. But such an appointment shall not exceed a period of 2 years.
Chief Justice of a High Court with the prior consent of President, can request a retired judge of the High Court whether of his own or any other state to sit and act as a judge of the High Court of the state. Such a judge shall enjoy and be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdictions, powers and privileges as any other judge of the High Court.
4. Essay on the Oath or Affirmation by Judges of High Courts:
Under the constitution every person appointed to be a judge of the High Court shall before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor of the state, or before a person so appointed by him for the purpose an oath or affirmation in the following form:
“I, A.B. having been appointed Chief Justice (or a judge of the High Court at) (or of)……………………….. do………………….. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, as by law established, that I will uphold sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection of ill will and I will uphold the Constitution and law.”
5. Essay on the Powers and Functions of High Courts:
One of the most essential features of Indian Judicial system is its impartiality. In the constitution it has been provided that the Judges should act impartially. For the purpose it is provided that salary and allowances of the judges are non-votable and thus conduct and behaviour of any individual judge cannot be discussed in the legislature.
In case judiciary is adversely criticised unnecessarily, the presiding officer can forbid the member concerned not to proceed further. Similarly procedure for the removal of a judge has been made complex and difficult, so that he is not afraid of the executive.
Similarly it is also provided that salaries and allowances of the Judges cannot be changed to their disadvantage, after the appointment has been made. Under Article 220 of the constitution it is provided that no person who has held office as a permanent judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court or High Court. This ban, however, applies only to permanent judges and is not to Acting or Additional judges.
Since High Courts in India were already in existence, before new constitution came into force, therefore, in the constitution it is provided that subject to such changes as may be made by different provisions of the constitution or otherwise by law, the powers of the judges of the High Courts shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of the constitution.
Article 225 of the constitution had a proviso which said that, “Any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction of any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or any act done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction.”
This provision of the constitution was omitted by Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act but was again restored and incorporated in the constitution with the passing of Forty- Fourth Constitution Amendment Act.
High Court of a state is the highest judicial authority, whose decisions are binding over all citizens residing in the state.
The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras have both original as well as appellate powers, whereas other High Courts have only appellate powers. Such powers extend both in civil as well as criminal cases. The High Courts are courts of record and have been authorised to issue directions, orders and writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, etc., for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of citizens or any other purpose. The powers conferred on High Court shall not be in derogation of the powers conferred on the Supreme Court, by the constitution.
The Chief Justice of the High Court is competent to appoint officers and servants of the High Court. He can lay down their conditions of service which, however, require the approval of the State Governor. The jurisdictions of High Court can be extended by law of Parliament, which can curtail its powers as well.
Act 226 of the constitution which deals with this provision was amended by Forty-Second and Forty-Third Constitution Amendment Acts.
Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act again amended this Article of the constitution, which is now as follows:
“Article 226:
Power of the High Court to issue certain writs:
(1) Not withstanding anything under Article 32, every High Court shall have power throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdictions, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any government, within these territories directions, orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any one of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose;
(2) To issue directions, orders or writs to a government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdictions in relation to the territories within which the cause of actions, wholly or in part, arise for the exercise of such power, not withstanding that the seat of such government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without,
(a) Furnishing to such party-copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
(b) Giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the dale on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or as the case may be, the expiry of said next day, stand vacated.”
In this way the High Courts have been given back the power to issue writs and also to examine central laws, which had been taken away from them after the passing of constitution Forty-Second and Forty-Third Amendment Acts.
Before the commencement of constitution, in India only the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras had the power to issue writs mentioned in the above said Article 226. But now all the courts have been given powers to issue these.
The writs are also known as prerogative writs. In the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao, it was ruled that High Court had no power to issue a writ to the Election Commission, which had its offices permanently located at New Delhi.
All the High Courts have almost agreed that writs or directions under Article 226 should ordinarily not be issued where an alternative remedy, equally efficient and adequate exists, unless there is any exceptional reason for dealing with the matter under writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of AB SK Sanga Vs. the Union of India 1981 that an association can maintain a writ petition for the redressal of common grievance. In Judges transfer case 1982, the Supreme Court has held that any member of the public having sufficient interest can approach the court for enforcing constitutional or legal proceedings where a specific legal injury has been caused to a determined group of persons when such group is unable to come before the court because of poverty, disability, etc., and the court will decide about relief. Thus, the scope of Art. 226 has been sufficiently widened.
6. Essay on the Kinds of Writs:
Certiorari may be described as an order issued by the High Court to an inferior court or body exercising what the High Court regards judicial or quasi-judicial function to have the decisions or acts of such courts or body removed to the High Court in order that its legality may be investigated.
It is discretionary and is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. It can be issued to a judicial or quasi-judicial body on the ground of want or excess jurisdiction, violation of procedure or dis-regard of principles of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
As regards writ of prohibition it is a type of a writ which commands the court or tribunal to whom it is issued to refrain from doing something which it is about to do or to assume jurisdictions which it does not possess. In other words such a writ lies both for excess of jurisdictions as well as absence of jurisdiction.
While differentiating between the two writs, Shukla says, “When an inferior court, takes up for hearing a matter over which it has no jurisdiction, the person against whom the proceedings are taken can move the superior court for a writ of prohibition, and on that, an order will issue prohibiting the inferior court from continuing the proceedings. On the other hand, if the court hears that case or matter and gives a decision, the party aggrieved will have to move the superior court for a writ of certiorari, and on that, an order will be made quashing the decision on the ground or want of jurisdiction.”
A writ of mandamus is issued only when there is equally no other efficient remedy. It is issued by the superior court, in the form of an order, to any government, corporation, court, etc., to do or forebear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of a public duty and in certain cases of statutory duty.
No mandamus will lie where the duty is of discretionary nature. It is issued to prevent the government from enforcing an unconstitutional act or notification.
Writ of Quo warranto is issued to prevent a person who has wrongfully usurped an office from continuing in that office. It calls upon the holder of the office to show to the court under what authority he holds the office. Before a citizen can claim this type of writ he must satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office. It will not lie in respect of an office of private nature and should be of substantive nature.
Writ of Corpus is very important. It is a process by which a person who is confined without legal justification may secure a release from his confinement. By this writ the High Court can order a person, who has kept in custody another person to bring the latter before the court and let it know on what grounds the prisoner is confined.
A person is not entitled to be released on the petition of habeas corpus if there is no illegal restraint. Physical confinement is not necessarily to constitute detention. Control and custody are sufficient.
Appellate Powers of High Courts:
Appeals from lower courts can lie in the High Court, both in civil and criminal matters, if the court is satisfied that some substantial question of law or interpretation of the constitution is involved or if any court below it has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or there has been some error of law.
If the High Court feels it necessary, it can withdraw some case pending before it and decide that and then return the lower court with a copy of the judgment to enable that court to proceed further in accordance with the judgment.
Power of Superintendence:
Article 227 of the constitution provides that, High Courts have power of superintendence over all other courts and tribunals throughout the state. It can call for returns from such courts and make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts. It is also empowered to prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts have been kept.
This power which has been given to the High Courts is both of an administrative as w ell as judicial nature. The High Courts, if need be, can interfere with the administrative orders of inferior courts. Such an interference can be for want of excess jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction violation of procedure, disregard of the principle of natural justice and error of law apparent on the face of record.
Such a superintendence also extends over tribunals which are not courts in the strict sense of the term.
In the case of B.N. Banerjee and P.R. Mukerji the Supreme Court has held that “Unless there was grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law the High Court could not interfere. The power should not ordinarily be exercised if some alternative remedy is available. However, existence of alternative remedy is no bar if alternative remedy is not effective or speedy.”
This Article too was amended by Forty-Second and Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Acts.
This Article of the constitution, as originally stood was:
“(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all court* and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdictions.”
This was substituted by Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act. It provided that:
“Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts subject to appellate jurisdictions.”
It also inserted a new sub-clause in this Article which read as follows:
(5) Nothing in this Article shall be construed as giving to High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior courts which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision.
Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act, however, brought back the status quo and nullified the changes introduced by Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act.
Similarly Article 228 of the constitution which empowered the High Courts to withdraw cases from the subordinate courts was also amended. The Article as it stood before amendment provided:
“If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may…
Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act omitted the words in italics and provided instead that
“It shall withdraw the case and subject to the provisions of Article 131 A, may.”…. shall be substituted. In other words by this provision, Article (131 A) imposed restrictions on the High Courts.
Forty-Third Constitution Amendment Act, however, nullified this amendment and restriction of Article 131A was removed from the courts.
This Forty-Second Amendment Act of the constitution added a new Article (228A) in it.
It provided that:
228 A: Special provision relating to constitutional validity of state laws:
(1) No High Court shall have jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid;
(2) Subject to the provisions of Article 131A, the High Court may determine all questions relating to constitutional validity of any state law;
(3) The minimum number of judges who shall sit for the purpose of determining any question as to the constitutional validity of any state law shall be five; provided that where the High Courts consist of less than five judges, all the judges of the High Court may sit and determine such questions.
(4) A state law shall not be declared to be constitutionally invalid by the High Court unless.
(a) Where the High Court consists of five judges or more, not less than two-third of the judges sitting for the purpose of determining the validity of such law, hold it to be constitutionally invalid, and
(b) Where the High Court consists of less than five judges, all the judges of the High Court sitting for the purpose hold it to be constitutionally invalid.
(5) The provisions of this Article shall have effect not withstanding anything contained in this part.
Explanation:
In computing the number of judges of a High Court for the purpose of this Article, a judge who is disqualified by reason of personal or pecuniary bias shall be excluded.
Forty-Third Constitution Amendment Act also omitted this and thus powers of the High Courts which had been much reduced were given back to them.
As a court of record High Court has power to punish those who are adjudged guilty of contempt of court. All its decisions are binding and cannot be questioned in any lower court.
The constitution has empowered Chief Justice to appoint officers and servants of High Court, whose conditions of service are also to be decided by him with the approval of the Governor. Parliament by law can extend jurisdictions of a High Court to, or exclude the jurisdictions of a High Court, to any Union Territory.
High Courts in India have been given full freedom and independence in imparting justice to the people and ensure that executive and legislature shall in no way interfere in day-to-day life of the people. During emergency period of 19 months along with Supreme Court some powers of the High Courts were taken away and many such powers were restored with the passing of Forty-Third and Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Acts.
During this period of 19 months some excesses were alleged to have been committed and for this Janata party which came to power in 1977, set up some Commissions of Enquiry and Specials Courts.
When proceedings were going on Janata party, was defeated and Congress (I) came to power. In many cases the courts allowed the government to withdraw the cases, while in many other cases the decisions went in favour of the accused.
This left an impression on the minds of the people, that the courts were deciding cases in changed climate and not on the merits of the case. According to them the courts in India have started deciding cases after sensing political climate.
On the other hand, there are others who argue that the courts are to decide the case on the basis of documents and evidences made available to them. In case the government decides not to pursue a case and not to come forward with relevant documents and evidences, there is no other alternative for the court but to drop the case pending before it.
High Courts and States:
Of course under the constitution the High Courts are linked with states but in actual practice these too are very much linked with the Centre. The Judges of the High Court and Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President.
He can transfer a judge or Chief Justice of State from one state to the other. He can decide dispute about retirement age of the judges and also promote them as judge of the Supreme Court. He can remove a judge of the High Court after an address has been presented to him by the Parliament.
Then the President can create a new High Court, thereby reduce the jurisdictions of some existing High Court. During financial emergency the Parliament can reduce or increase the salaries and allowances of judges of the High Court. Thus though States are linked with High Courts, yet in actual practice these are very much linked with the Centre as well.
Inter State Transfer of Judges:
For some time judges were not transferred from one High Court to the other but during 1975 emergency period the judges began to transferred from one High Court to the other. In 1977, in the case of Union of India Vs. Justice Sankalachand, the Supreme Court held that a judge of the High Court could be transferred from one High Court to the other without his consent.
In this case the Supreme Court asserted that the power to transfer a judge is conferred on the President in the public interest and not for the purpose of providing the executive with the weapon to punish a judge for any reason whatever.
It also made it clear that it was absolutely obligatory on the President to consult Chief Justice of India before transferring a judge from one High Court to another and that this consultation must be effective one.
In another case on 30th December, 1981 Supreme Court made it clear that a High Court judge may be transferred from one state to another without obtaining his consent, the only requirement being that there must be effective consultation and that the transfer must be in public interest and not by way of punishment.
On October 7, 1993 in the case of S.C. Advocate on Record Vs. the Union of India the Court held that in case of transfer of judges of High Courts the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has not the primacy but is determinative in the matter and that the consent of the transferred judge is not required. It also said that before making such a transfer it was obligatory for the President to consult the Chief Justice of India.
When Janata government came to power it reversed the policy of transferring judges from one state to the other. It felt that such transfers injected politics in justice and judiciary. In 1980 when Congress (I) came to power it again followed the old policy of transferring judges from one state to the other.
Its argument was that judges from outside the state are more impartial in their judicial pronouncements than those from within. National Front government of V.P. Singh however, was not in favour of transfer of High Court Judges from one state to the other, but judges are now being frequently followed from one state to the other without any difficulty.
7. Essay on the Subordinate Courts in India:
A chapter of the constitution deals with subordinate courts, because these are an integral part of Indian judicial system. There is hardly any other constitution of the world, which discusses at such a great length the composition and detailed working of subordinate courts.
It is provided in the constitution that appointment of judges, their postings and promotion at district level, in any state, shall be made by the Governor of the state, in consultation with the High Court, in whose jurisdiction such a court falls.
It is provided that any person who is not already in the service of state or Union shall be eligible to be appointed as District Judge provided, he has been an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years and has been recommended by the High Court for appointment. But judges, other than District Judges, are appointed by the Governor in accordance with the High Court and State Public Service Commission.
It is the duty and responsibility of High Courts to exercise control and supervision over the subordinate and district courts; in matters of leave, postings, promotion and transfers and also over the personnel belonging to state judicial service. For judicial purposes each state is divided into several districts. Even each district is headed by a District Magistrate. In each district there are civil, criminal and revenue courts.
i. Civil Courts:
At the district level, the highest civil court is district court, which is headed by a District Magistrate. He supervises the working of civil courts and has both original as well as appellate powers. Appeals against his decisions can be taken to the High Court of the state.
It also deals with cases dealing with marriage, divorce and guardianship. Below this court are courts of Senior Sub-Judges, Courts of Sub-Judges, and small causes courts, which are all in hierarchal order.
The last mentioned courts are also known as Munsif’s courts and are established in big cities to dispose of cases in which small sums of Rs.500/- are involved. Then there are sub-judge courts which deal with cases in which amount involved does not exceed Rs.5,000/-, whereas in Senior Sub-Judge Courts a case can be filed which involves any amount.
All these courts have original jurisdictions. Decisions of these courts can be challenged in the District Courts.
ii. Criminal Courts:
Criminal courts are organised in a hierarchal order. Court of Session Judge is at the top and is empowered to try all criminal cases involving murder and other serious offences duly committed to it by a First Class Magistrate. It can award even death penalty, but such a penalty must be confirmed by the State High Court.
Below this are First Class, Second Class and Third Class Magistrate Courts. Third Class Magistrate Court deals with minor offences. It can give punishments up to Rs.50/- and sentence a person up to one month, where as a Second Class Magistrate can impose a fine up to Rs.200/- and put a person behind bars for a period of six months.
Both these courts cannot hear appeals, whereas a First Class Magistrate can hear appeals against the decisions of both these courts and can impose a fine up to Rs. 1000/- and award imprisonment up to two years.
iii. Revenue Courts:
Land revenue is one of the important sources of state income. Cases dealing with land revenue are usually very complicated. For the recovery of land revenue and dealing with other revenue cases, separate revenue courts have been set up.
At the lowest level are Tehsildar courts. Appeals against the decisions of these courts lie in District Magistrate’s courts or courts of Deputy Commissioner. Above Deputy Commissioner court is Commissioner’s Court. In revenue cases final court of appeal is Board of Revenue.
Thus, in India judicial system is in hierarchal order. Under the Directive Principles of State Policy the slate has been directed to take steps for the separation of the executive from the judiciary. In some of the states this step has already been taken and executive has been separated from judiciary. These include Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal.
Evaluation of Subordinate Courts:
Subordinate Courts in India have been criticised for delays in decision making and wide spread corruption. It is also said that in these courts there is lot of accumulation of arrears and no uniformity in decision making. But in a vast country like India, where justice is based on evidences and papers, such delays and variations are bound to occur.
Moreover due to wide spread illiteracy, continuance of some of the outdated laws, large number of courts and tendency of the people to get their disputes settled in the courts of law, has resulted in accumulation of large number of cases at every level.
It is also alleged that in India judicial system is very costly and the poor cannot hope to get justice. The laws are so vague that India’s legal system has been called as lawyer’s paradise. It is also said that judges in India are idealist and not realist and they do not face hard realities of life, in many cases, while giving justice. Still another criticism advanced against judiciary is that these days it is showing a tendency towards bowing to political pressures.
In a seminar organised by United Lawyer’s Association on August 12, 1980, at Indian Law Institute, New Delhi both Justices H.R. Khanna and V.R. Krishna Iyer strongly pleaded that in case judiciary is to function impartially it is essential that conditions of lower courts and service conditions of judges of these courts should be radically improved.
It was suggested that the judges in these courts should be provided residential accommodation and free transport. Their emoluments should be raised and buildings and environments in which they are required to work should be made congenial and their working conditions drastically improved.
But so far nothing very far reaching has been done to improve the lower courts to check prevailing corruption there and to ensure that the cases are speedily disposed of.
The judges in these courts have several grudges. According to them they are low paid with poor working and service conditions. They are under pressure from all quarters and with the passing of time pressure from political and bureaucratic bosses is very much increasing.