Hierarchy of Courts

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court holds original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction includes disputes between the Centre and States or between different States, as well as matters concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of individuals. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked via a certificate from the High Court related to any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in civil and criminal cases, particularly those involving significant legal questions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or any law. Additionally, the appellate jurisdiction can be invoked through the Special Leave Petition (SLP) under its residuary power, applicable only in cases involving substantial legal questions or gross injustice.

Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts and tribunals in India and serve as precedents for lower courts. Article 141 of the Constitution mandates that all Indian courts must follow the Supreme Court's decisions as the rule of law. Furthermore, Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders necessary for complete justice between parties. Over the years, the Supreme Court has frequently used Article 142 to achieve justice, introducing concepts such as absolute liability and the prospective application of judgments.

High Courts

High Courts have jurisdiction over the States in which they are situated. Currently, there are 25 High Courts in India. Some High Courts have jurisdiction over more than one State or Union Territory, such as the Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court, Guwahati High Court, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Madras High Court, and Punjab and Haryana High Court. For example, the Bombay High Court, located in Mumbai, covers the States of Maharashtra and Goa, and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu.

  Every High Court shall have a Chief Justice appointed by the President.

  There is no longer a fixed number of judges for each High Court.

  Additional judges can be appointed to clear pending cases, but their tenure cannot exceed two years.

  It is important to note that no one above the age of 62 can be appointed as a High Court judge.

  The number of judges varies among High Courts, with smaller states having fewer judges compared to larger states.

A High Court enjoys the following jurisdictions:

• Original jurisdiction
• Writ jurisdiction
• Appellate jurisdiction
• Supervisory jurisdiction
• Control over subordinate courts
• Court of record
• Power of judicial review

 

 

District Courts

District Courts in India are local courts established by the State Government. Each district court, which may serve a single district or multiple districts, has the autonomy to adjudicate disputes and administer justice. These courts handle cases originating within their respective districts, providing legal and judicial oversight at the district level. District Courts hear appeals on various decisions made by lower courts and are involved in serious criminal cases or offenses.

District courts possess original and appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases within one or more districts in the states. These courts are presided over by district judges and are accountable to the High Courts of their respective states. The judges of district courts are appointed by the Governor of the respective state, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the State High Court.

Lower Courts 

The lower subordinate courts consist of the Civil Court and the District Munsif Court, both overseen by a Sub-Judge. The higher subordinate courts, dealing with criminal matters, are led by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, followed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates (ACJM) or Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (ACMM), and Judicial Magistrates (JM) or Metropolitan Magistrates (MM) at lower levels.

The Executive and Revenue Courts, which fall under the purview of the state government, are managed by the district magistrate or other executive magistrates. Although these executive courts are not part of the judiciary, various provisions and judicial rulings grant High Courts and Session Judges the authority to inspect or direct their operations.

In some states, there are lower courts below the district courts, known as Munsif’s courts and small causes courts. These courts have only original jurisdiction and can adjudicate suits involving small amounts. However, in some states, civil courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Judicial officers in these courts are appointed based on their performance in competitive examinations conducted by the various States' Public Service Commissions.

 

Commercial Courts  

The State Government, in consultation with the concerned High Court, may issue a notification to establish the necessary number of Commercial Courts at the district level to exercise the jurisdiction and powers granted to these courts under this Act.

The Commercial Courts Act governs the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts. These courts resolve all cases and petitions related to commercial disputes arising within the entire territory of the state over which they have been granted territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to business disputes handled by these courts. The procedure followed by Commercial Courts is different and stricter in some aspects than the procedure as applicable to adjudication process of other civil disputes in general

 

Tribunals

Tribunals are institutions established to perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Their purpose is often to reduce the judiciary's caseload or to provide specialized expertise for technical matters. The Supreme Court has determined that tribunals, as quasi-judicial bodies, must maintain the same level of independence from the executive branch as the judiciary. Important factors in ensuring this independence include the method of selecting members, the composition of the tribunals, and the terms and tenure of service.

To safeguard this independence, the Supreme Court has recommended that all administrative matters related to tribunals be managed by the law ministry, rather than by the ministry connected to the subject area of the tribunal. Additionally, the Court suggested the establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission to oversee the administration of tribunals. However, these recommendations have not yet been implemented.

The Tribunals that need a special mention are as follows: 

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 
• Railways Claims Tribunal 
• Appellate Tribunal for Electricity 
• Debts Recovery Tribunal 
• Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 
• National Company Law Tribunal 
• Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal 
• Competition Appellate Tribunal 

For example, Rent Controllers handle rent disputes, Family Courts address matrimonial and child custody cases, Consumer Tribunals resolve consumer issues, and Industrial Tribunals or Courts handle labor disputes. Tax Tribunals deal with tax-related issues. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has been established to streamline liquidation proceedings, resolve disputes, and ensure compliance with specific provisions of the Companies Act, 2013

Alternate Dispute Resolution 

In recent years, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained widespread popularity among both the general public and the legal profession. As the name suggests, ADR provides alternative methods for resolving disputes. Traditionally, people would immediately turn to the courts for settlement when disputes arose. However, the increasing costs of litigation, lengthy procedures, and significant delays have made traditional lawsuits impractical. Civil courts often face backlogged dockets, causing delays that can last for years. Consequently, some courts now encourage parties to pursue ADR before allowing their cases to proceed to trial.

Various methods are used in ADR, with Arbitration, Mediation, and Conciliation being the most widely utilized

 A brief description of few widely used ADR procedures is as follows: 

1. Negotiation: A non-binding procedure where the parties engage in discussions without third-party intervention, aiming to reach a negotiated settlement of the dispute..

2. Conciliation: In this process, parties seek the advice of a conciliator, who speaks with each party separately and attempts to resolve their disputes. Conciliation is a non-binding procedure where the conciliator helps the disputing parties reach a mutually satisfactory and agreed-upon settlement.3. Mediation: A non-binding procedure in which an impartial third party, known as a mediator, facilitates the resolution process without imposing a solution. The parties retain the freedom to decide on the terms and outcome at their own discretion..

4. Arbitration: It is a method of resolving disputes outside the court, where the parties submit their dispute to one or more appointed arbitrators. The arbitrator(s) review the case and issue a decision that is legally binding on both parties. Arbitration clauses are typically included in commercial agreements, stipulating that any future disputes regarding the contract terms and conditions will be resolved through arbitration.