Article 133: Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Appeals from High Courts in Regard to Civil Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sivananda Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
High Courts

Pandemic and PILs: A Study on the Approach of the High Courts in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Sourya Bandyopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

Studies in Public interest Litigation (PIL) in India are predominantly about the Supreme Court's approach in meeting the ends of justice through indigenously evolved jurisdiction. The High Courts as important constitutional bodies are more often than not remain out of detailed discussion. As the High Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with regard to PILs, this paper aims to study the pattern of invocation of the jurisdiction at the regional level. It surveys the variety of pleas and consequent action under PIL jurisdiction (or inaction, as the case may be) of different High Courts in India relating to covid crisis and consequential matters. To that end, it undertakes a survey of High Court orders or judgments from April to July, 2020. It seeks to lay bare the extent of demands that are made before the Courts through PIL. What kinds of action were expected from the High Courts during the pandemic? How did different Courts respond to such pleas? Were the directions and level of response homogenous or varied? The paper pursues these questions, and describes the pandemic though the lens of PIL in Indian High Courts. It goes on to argue that the High Courts in India need to take greater cognizance of their orders inter-se especially in PIL matters, as human rights protection through PIL cannot have contradictory voices.

Enforcing Rights against the State in India

2019 ◽  
pp. 211-279
Author(s):  
Florian Matthey-Prakash
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
The State ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

Chapter 4 deals with the issue of lack of access to justice and attempts to find reasons for the inaccessibility of the higher judiciary. While it appears to be clear to observers that the Supreme Court and high courts are not accessible enough, surprisingly, there are actually no empirical studies that examine why this is the case. Some factors can, however, be deduced from a study dealing with the inaccessibility of district courts, that is, the lower judiciary.The fourth chapter also shows that the institution of Public Interest Litigation, for various reasons, cannot compensate for lack of access to justice, and that the state is not properly implementing (or not at all exploring) many other possible alternative mechanisms.

Scandalizing the judiciary: An analysis of the uneven response of the Supreme Court of India to sexual harassment allegations against judges

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-590
Author(s):  
Sanjay Jain ◽  
Saranya Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Systematic Pattern

Abstract The Supreme Court of India (SC) pronounced a momentous judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan in 1997, categorically recognizing the menace of sexual harassment (SH) at workplace and constitutionally rendering it as being in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950. The Court also provided a mechanism for redressal against SH, which was ultimately reinforced by Parliament with the enactment of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act). However, when it comes to allegations of SH against judges in the SC and High Courts by its employees, interns, or lower court judges, the response of the SC has been abysmal to say the least. There is a systematic pattern to suggest foul play and conspiracy in each such allegation, and judges, including even the Chief Justice of India (CJI), have not hesitated to openly indulge in victim-shaming and-blaming. In other words, the court has not been able to uphold its own jurisprudence on sexual harassment, which it expects to be scrupulously adhered to by other organs of the state. It is submitted that in not supporting the cause of victims alleging SH against judges, the other organs of the state are also party to this constitutional decay and serious infraction of fundamental rights. It leads us to ask the question, how can we guard against the guardians?

Repeat Litigators and Agenda Setting on the Supreme Court of Canada

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy B. Flemming ◽  
Glen S. Krutz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Statistical Models ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Of

The expanding public policy role of high courts heightens concerns over whether societal and political inequalities affect the outcomes of litigation. However, comparative research on this question is limited. This article assesses whether status inequalities between parties and differences in the experience and resources of attorneys influence the selection of cases for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Canada. A series of statistical models reveal that governments are more likely than other parties to influence whether leave is granted but that the experience and resources of lawyers, unlike in the United States, have little impact. The decentralized, low volume and high access features of the Canadian process may explain this finding.

scholarly journals From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System: The Impact on Diversity in the Indian Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aparna Chandra ◽  
William Hubbard ◽  
Sital Kalantry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
High Court ◽  
Judicial Appointments ◽  
High Courts ◽  
National Debate ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

There has been a national debate raging in India about the system of appointments for Supreme Court and High Court judges. At the founding of the Indian Supreme Court, the executive had primary authority over judicial appointments. In 1993, the Supreme Court created a new system of appointments known as the collegium system, whereby the Chief Justice of India and senior judges of the Supreme Court make new appointments to the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. In 2014, Parliament amended the Constitution and passed a bill to create a commission to appoint judges, but the Indian Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional.In this article, we ascertain whether the nature of the appointments procedure impacts the biographical and other characteristics of the judges that are eventually selected. We do this by comparing the biographical characteristics of judges appointed by the executive-appointments system (prior to 1993), on the one hand, and the judges appointed by the collegium (on or after 1993) to the Supreme Court of India.We find that both the pre-collegium and the collegium system maintain the geographical and religious diversity of India in the candidates that are appointed. However, both have failed to account for gender diversity. In addition, the path to the Supreme Court appears to have narrowed – typically those who are appointed as judges by the collegium spend longer periods in private practice and on the bench than pre-collegium judges.

Part IV Separation of Powers, Ch.19 Judicial Architecture and Capacity

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robinson Nick
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Administrative Control ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Indian Supreme Court

This chapter examines the structure of the Indian judiciary, which includes the different types of courts and judges as well as the hierarchies and relations between them. In particular, it considers the appeal and stare decisis, along with the system of internal administrative control through which the Indian judiciary coordinates its behaviour. The discussion begins with an overview of India’s judicial system and the relevant provisions of the Indian Constitution. The chapter then discusses the functioning of the Indian Supreme Court, the High Courts, and subordinate judiciary. It comments on the top-heaviness of the Indian judiciary and its impact on the judicial system’s performance.

Commitment and Cooperation on High Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Alarie ◽  
Andrew J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
High Courts ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia

This chapter sets out and justifies the building blocks of commitment and cooperation. These two dimensions allow the authors to situate high courts relative to each other. They use them to focus on the five main high courts in their study, namely, the US Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court (and its predecessor House of Lords), the Supreme Court of Canada, the High Court of Australia, and the Indian Supreme Court. This chapter provides both a preliminary assessment of how these courts sit relative to each other along these two dimensions and a brief overview of the key design choices made by each of these courts.

Article 21A

2019 ◽  
pp. 118-210
Author(s):  
Florian Matthey-Prakash
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms

Chapter 3 offers some guidance concerning the content of Article 21A. This question is approached purely legally, not politically. Therefore, the chapter does not describe what content would be desirable. Instead, it discusses which concrete legal obligations the article might impose on the state. It also highlights that Article 21A, read with Articles 32 and 226, clearly imposes an obligation on the state to provide accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms to right-bearers. The fact that the petitioners in none of the cases concerning Article 21A decided by the Supreme Court, and in hardly any cases decided by the high courts, were aggrieved children or their parents shows that the higher judiciary is not accessible enough.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document