LEGAL RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

BA LL.B 4

To

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi

Intrenship Co-ordinator: Submitted by:

Mr. Prashant kr. Tiwari Student Name:
Vishwesh kr. Singh

Roll
No:03719103819

CENTRE FOR LEGAL STUDIES

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL
DELHI-110085
Batch (2019-2024)
 CERTIFICATE

I, Vishwesh kr. Singh, Enrolment No. 03719103819 certify that the Legal research project is
conducted by me and the Report submitted is an authentic work carried out by me only.
The matter embodied in this Report has not been submitted earlier for the award of any
degree or diploma to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature of the Student

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, Vishwesh kr. Singh owe this moment of satisfaction with deep sense of gratitude
to Mr Prashant Tiwari, Advocate, without whose help this legal research project
would have been impossible. I am thankful to him for his invaluable teachings,
guidance, advice given to me, for helping me in exploring and making this research
project better. Nothing concrete can be achieved without an optimal combination
of inspiration and perspiration. No work can be accomplished without taking the
guidance of experts. It is only the critiques from ingenious intellectual that help to
transform a product into a quality product.
 CHAPTER 1 :

LEGAL DELIVERY SYSTEM AT DISTRICT LEVEL

1.1 EVOLUTION OF COURT SYSTEM IN INDIA

Having the distinction of being one of the world's oldest civilisations, religious
prescriptions in ancient India set the course for our legal system. By 400 BC, society
realised the importance of statecraft and economic policy as in the Arthashastra. Also,
Manusmriti spelt out laws in a comprehensive manner, followed by the Yajnavalkya
Smriti, which explained the conduct a person must follow in a civilised society and the
legal procedures to be followed when it is misappropriated.

The Mughal Era had twelve ordinances of Jehangir and the Fatawa-i-A Xat, a digest of
Muslim law. Judicial officers followed the Quranic interpretations of law or the Fatawas.
However, customary law was widely used and the principles of equity and speedy disposal
of justice were paramount. Punishments like whiplashing, confinement and death were
introduced in this era.

Until the 19th century, India saw court systems evolve, dealing with civil suits and
criminal cases, as well as developing the basis for equity, justice and to some extent,
secularism. The British era brought with it the common law system and law based on
judicial precedents. The Mayor’s Courts established in 1726 laid the basis for the court
system that we have today, while extinguishing the Mughal legal system. The First War
of Independence in 1857, and the Indian High Courts Act in 1862 worked at replacing the
mayor's courts and establishing Supreme Courts and High Courts in India. During that
period, the Privy Council played the role of the highest court of appeal.

Presently, we have about 600 courts in the country including all the District courts, High
courts and the Supreme court. Ever since the British era, the court system of the country
has witnessed several changes. These changes can be witnessed in the statues too. Many
statutes that were made during the British era has undergone so many amendments that
were necessary with respect to time for the society and the people. Our constitution has
witnessed 103 amendments as per March, 2019. These amendments are a part of
evolution of law in the country.

1.2 HIERARCHY OF INDIAN COURT SYSTEM

There are various levels of judiciary in India, each with varying powers depending
upon the tier and jurisdiction bestowed upon them. They form a strict hierarchy of
precedence, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, with the Supreme
Court of India at the top, followed by High Courts of respective states with district
judges sitting in District Courts and Magistrates of Second Class and Civil Judge
(Junior Division) at the bottom.

i. SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the country or nation, which is
established by the Constitution. According to it, 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 composition and jurisdiction of the Court.
Primarily, it is an appellate court which takes up appeals against judgments of the
High Courts of the states and territories. However, it also takes writ petitions in
cases of serious human rights violations or any petition filed under Article 32 which
is the right to constitutional remedies or if a case involves a serious issue that needs
immediate resolution. It had its inaugural sitting on 26 January 1950, the day India's
constitution came into force, and since then has delivered more than 24,000
reported judgments.
The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges.
The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. The Supreme
Court Rules of 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate
the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court. The same is amended and
presently governed by the Supreme Court Rules of 2013.

ii. HIGH COURT

 There are 25 High Courts at the State level (including new Andhra Pradesh
HC). Article 141 of the Constitution of India 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. Below the High Courts are a hierarchy of subordinate courts such as the
civil courts, family courts, criminal courts and various other district courts. High
courts are instituted as constitutional courts under Part VI, Chapter V, Article 214
of the Indian Constitution.
The High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in the state
along with District Courts which are subordinate to the High courts. However, High
courts exercise their original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the courts
subordinate to the high court in the state are not competent (not authorised by law)
to try such matters for lack of pecuniary, territorial jurisdiction. High courts may
also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters if so designated specifically in a
state or Federal law. e.g.: Company law cases are instituted only in a high court.
However, primarily the work of most High Courts consists of Appeals from lower
courts and writ petitions in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ
Jurisdiction is also original jurisdiction of High Court. The precise territorial
jurisdiction of each High Court varies
Judges in a high court are appointed by the President after consultation with
the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of High Court and the governor of the state.
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.
The Calcutta High Court is the oldest High Court in the country, established on 2
July 1862, whereas the Allahabad High Court is the largest, having a sanctioned
strength of judges at 160.
High courts which handle a large number of cases of a particular region, have
permanent benches (or a branch of the court) established there. For litigants of
remote regions, 'circuit benches' are set up, which work for those days in a month
when judges visit.

iii. DISTRICT COURTS AND SUBORDINATE COURTS

The District Courts of India are established by the State governments of India for
every district or for one or more districts together taking into account the number
of cases, population distribution in the district. They administer justice in India at
a district level. These courts are under administrative control of the High Court of
the State to which the district concerned belongs. The decisions of District court
are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the concerned High court.
The district court is presided over by one District Judge appointed by the state
Government. In addition to the district judge there may be number of Additional
District Judges and Assistant District Judges depending on the workload. The
Additional District Judge and the court presided have equivalent jurisdiction as the
District Judge and his district court. The district judge is also called "Metropolitan
session judge" when he is presiding over a district court in a city which is designated
"Metropolitan area" by the state Government. The district court has appellate
jurisdiction over all subordinate courts situated in the district on both civil and
criminal 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 addition 'Family Courts" are established
to deal with matrimonial disputes alone. The Principal judge of family court is
equivalent to District Judge.
Subordinate courts are also known as village courts, Lok Adalat (people's court)
or Nyaya panchayat (justice of the villages), compose a system of alternative
dispute resolution. They were recognised through the 1888 Madras Village Court
Act, then developed (after 1935) in various provinces and (after 1947) Indian
states. The model from the Gujarat State (with a judge and two assessors) was used
from the 1970s onwards. In 1984 the Law Commission recommended to create
Panchayats in rural areas with laymen ("having educational attainments"). The
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. However, the Act has not been enforced properly, with only 151 functional
Gram Nyayalayas in the country (as of May 2012) against a target of 5000 such
courts. The major reasons behind the non-enforcement includes financial
constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.

1.3 CONSTITUTION AND COMPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT

The highest court in each district is that of the District and Sessions Judge. This is
the principal court of original civil jurisdictionbesides the High Court of the State
and which derives its jurisdiction in civil matters primarily from the code of civil
procedure. The district court is also a court of sessions when it exercises its
jurisdiction on criminal matters under the Code of Criminal procedure. The district
court is presided over by a district judge appointed by the state governor with on the
advice of state chief justice. In addition to the district judge there may be a number
of additional district judges and assistant district judges depending on the workload.
The additional district judge and the court presided have equivalent jurisdiction as
the district judge and his district court.

However, the district judge has supervisory control over additional and assistant
district judges, including decisions on the allocation of work among them. The
district and sessions judge is often referred to as "district judge" when presiding over
civil matters and "sessions judge" when presiding over criminal matters. Being the
highest judge at district level, the district judge also enjoys the power to manage the
state funds allocated for the development of judiciary in the district.
The district judge is also called "metropolitan session judge" when presiding over a
district court in a city which is designated "metropolitan area" by the state. Other
courts subordinated to district court in the metropolitan area are also referred to with
"metropolitan" prefixed to the usual designation. An area is designated a
metropolitan area by the concerned state government if population of the area
exceeds one million or more.

The judges of subordinate courts are appointed by the governor in consultation with
the chief justice of the high court of the concerned state. A minimum of seven years
of practise as a lawyer at bar is a necessary qualification for direct entry level to
become a district judge upon a written examination and oral interview by a
committee of high court judges, the appointment of district judges is notified by the
state government. This is referred to as direct recruitment. District judges are also
appointed by way of elevation of judges from courts subordinate to district courts
provided they fulfill the minimum years of service but unfortunately the entry level
district judge exams have caused the judges on the lower rungs of the judiciary to
become lax as their chances of filling up posts for the work they had done may never
fructify to promotions because of posts later being filled up by lawyers directly
becoming district judges.
The next level of ascendancy for a district judge who served sufficient number of
years is the post of high court judge. High court judges are usually appointed from
a pool of advocates practicing at the bar of the high court and district judges who
served for sufficient number of years. This has also caused district judges to wane
in their efficiency as they have come to realize that elevation of lawyers directly to
high court judges dampens their process of being awarded with promotions for the
work they've put in over many years of service.
A district judge or additional judge may be removed from his office by the governor
on conformation from the high court collegium.

The district court or additional district court exercises jurisdiction both on original
side and appellate side in civil and criminal matters arising in the district. The
territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction in civil matters is usually set in concerned state
enactments on the subject of civil courts. On the criminal side, jurisdiction is
exclusively derived from thecriminal procedure code. As per this code the maximum
sentence a sessions judge of district court may award to a convict is capital
punishment.
The district court has appellate jurisdiction over all subordinate courts situated in the
district on both civil and criminal matters. Subordinate courts, on the civil side (in
ascending order) are, Junior Civil Judge Court,[4] 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.
Certain matters on criminal side or civil side cannot be tried by a lesser court than a
district court. This gives the district court original jurisdiction in such matters.
Appeals from the district courts lie to the High Court of the concerned state.

1.4 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF DISTRICT COURT

District and Sessions Judge in the cadre of Himachal Pradesh higher judicial services
is the ministerial head of the Civil and Sessions Division. All the ministerial staff of
the subordinate Courts of the Civil and Sessions Division are under the immediate
administrative control of District and Sessions Judge. The District and Sessions Judge
is the Controlling and appointing authority of the ministerial staff of all the Courts of
his Civil and Sessions Division. The District and Sessions Judge is also the
disciplinary authority in respect of the ministerial staff of his Civil and Sessions
Division. The District and Sessions Judge is also head of the District Judiciary and is
also acting as Chairman, District Legal Services Authority. All correspondence of the
subordinate courts to the Hon’ble High Court is being routed through the office of
District and Sessions Judge. In some matters of the subordinate Courts final action is
taken by the District and Sessions Judge.

There is one post of Superintendent Grade-I, in the office of District and Sessions
Judge and all the administrative work of Civil and Sessions Division is being looked
after by the Superintendent Grade-I. Initially, the administrative files are being dealt
by the English Clerk and Leave Reserve Clerk of the office of District and Sessions
Judge and Accounts matters are being dealt by the Civil Nazir and Naib Nazir of the
office of District and Sessions Judge. The work of the establishment of the office of
District and Sessions Judge is being looked after by the Superintendent Grade-I under
the direct control of the District and Sessions Judge. The Superintendent Grade-I is
also acting as Senior Court Officer for taking up service matters. The appointing and
controlling authority in respect of the post of Superintendent Grade-I in the Civil and
Sessions Division is Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

Besides this, in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, one post of Superintendent
Grade-II (Reader) has been provided to attend to the court work. Civil and Criminal
Ahlmads (Clerks) have been assigned the work of dealing Civil and Criminal cases
and they have to comply with daily orders of the Court. Similarly, in the Subordinate
Courts Civil and Criminal Ahlmads have been provided in each court for maintaining
Civil and Criminal Cases. In subordinate courts posts of Naib Nazir and Copyist have
also been provided. In subordinate Courts one post of Superintendent Grade-II has
been provided to each court except Court No.III (Una) to attend to the administrative
matters. However, Superintendents do not dispose of any matter at their own level.

1.5 OTHER JUDICIARY BODIES AT DISTRICT LEVEL

a) Family court
 Family court is a court of Equity convened to decide matters and
make orders in relation to family law, such as custody of children. In
common-law jurisdictions "family courts" are statutory creations primarily
dealing with equitable matters devolved from a court of inherent jurisdiction,
such as a superior court. Family courts were first established in the United
States in 1910, when they were called domestic relations courts although the
idea itself is much older.

b) Motor Accident Claim Tribunal

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal MACT deals with matters related
to compensation of motor accidents victims or their next of kin .The Tribunal
deal with claims relating to loss of life/property and injury cases resulting
from Motor Accidents.MACT Courts are presided over by Judicial Officers
from the State Higher Judicial Service. Now these Courts are under direct
supervision of the Hon’ble High Court of the respective state.

c) Green Court
The National Green Tribunal is established under the green tribunal Act for
effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources.

d) Consumer Forum
Consumer Court is a special purpose court in India that deals with cases
regarding consumer disputes, conflicts and grievances. They are judiciary
hearings set up by the government to protect the consumers' rights. Its main
function is to maintain the fair practices & contracts by sellers. Consumers
can file a case against a seller if they are cheated or exploited by sellers.
e) Mediation Process
Mediation is a dynamic, structured, interactive process where a neutral third
party assists disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of
specialized communication and negotiation techniques. All participants
in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the process.

TOPIC
 ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN CONSERVING CONSTITUTIONAL
VALUES , ITS LOOP HOLES AND THE MEASURES TO BE
TAKEN TO STRENGTHEN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

India has the oldest judiciary in the world. No other judicial system has a more ancient or
exalted pedigree. Indian jurisprudence was found on the rule of law; that the King himself
was subject to the law; that arbitrary power was unknown to Indian political theory and
jurisprudence and the kind’s right to govern was subject to the fulfillment of duties the
breach of which resulted in forfeiture of kingship; that the judges were independent and
subject only to the law; that ancient India had the highest standard of any nation of antiquity
as regards the ability, learning, integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary,
and these standards have not been surpassed till today ; that the Indian judiciary consisted
of a hierarchy of judges with the Court of the Chief Justice (Praadvivaka) at the top, each
higher Court being invested with the power to review the decision of the Courts below ;
that disputes were decided essentially in accordance with the same principles of natural
justice which govern the judicial process in the modern State today.
In the Mahabharata, it was laid down " A King who after having sworn that he shall protect
his subjects fails to protect them should be executed like a mad dog." "The people should
execute a king who does not protect them, but deprives them of their property and assets
and who takes no advice or guidance from any one. Such a king is not a king but
misfortune."These provisions indicate that sovereignty was based on an implied social
compact and if the King violated the traditional pact, he forfeited his kingship. Coming to
the historical times of Mauryan Empire, Kautilya describes the duties of a king in the Arth-
shastra thus : "In the happiness of his subjects lies the King’s happiness; in their welfare
his welfare; whatever pleases him he shall not consider as good, but whether pleases his
people he shall consider to good."
The Principle enunciated by Kautilya was based on a very ancient tradition which was
already established in the age of the Ramayana. Rama, the King of Ayodhya, was
compelled to banish his queen, whom he loved and in whose chastity he had comlete faith,
simply because his subjects disapproved of his having taken back a wife who had spent a
year in the house of her abductor. The king submitted to the will of people though it broke
his heart.
According to Brihaspati Smiriti, there was a hierarchy of courts in Ancient India beginning
with the family Courts and ending with the King. The lowest was the family arbitrator. The
next higher court was that of the judge; the next of the Chief Justice who was called
Praadivivaka, or adhyaksha; and at the top was the King’s court. The jurisdiction of each
was determined by the importance of the dispute, the minor disputes being decided by the
lowest court and the most important by the king. The decision of each higher Court
superseded that of the court below.
I shall now give a very brief description of our judicial system today. Barring the Supreme
Court, India has no federal judiciary like the United States. Each State has its own judiciary,
which administers both Union and State laws. As during the Maurya Empire, each district
in the State has its hierarchy of judicial officers- Munsif, Civil Judge, Civil and Sessions
Judge- with the District Judge as its head.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN CONSERVING CONSTITUTIONAL

VALUES OF INDIA

The constitution of India which was drafted by the Constituent Assembly and which came
in to force on 26th January, 1950 contains number of provisions that deal with structure,
function and powers of the judiciary. It introduced a unified system in all the states and
Union Territories. It virtually introduced a three-tier judicial system viz. The Supreme
Court of India, the highest court of the land, the high courts, and a subordinate judiciary in
every state and Union Territories consisting of many hierarchies. Although the constitution
contains specific provisions relating only to the Supreme Court and High Courts and it
leaves the subordinate judiciary to the states. The position of the Supreme Court under the
constitution came up for consideration before the Constituent Assembly at a very early age.
Almost simultaneously with the appointment of the union constitution committee, a special
committee was setup to consider and report on the constitution and power of the Supreme
Court.

This committee consisted of S. Varadachari, Alladi Krishna Swami Ayyar, B.L. Mitter,
K.M. Munshi and B.N. Rau. The committee sent its report11 on May 21, 1947. Its
recommendations were mainly based on the provisions of the Act of 1935. So, it is
submitted that the judiciary plays a vital and key role in constitutional democracies. The
degree of intervention by the judiciary may depending on the legal system followed in
different countries likes as in Britain where there is no written constitution, the judiciary
may exercise only a limited power of judicial review vis-a-vis the delegated legislation and
ministerial action of the government. The role of the British judiciary is basically law
application and low-interpretation.

In USA the judiciary is considered to be supreme, among the three organs of the state viz.
the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. This has become possible not because there
is a written section in the constitution to enable the judiciary to check the other two organs
if they indulge in any excesses. In India the judiciary has come to exercise vast powers of
judicial review in respect of the legislative and executive functions of the state and of the
judicial actions of the judiciary. The Supreme Court and the High Courts not only act as
the arbiters to determine disputes that may arise between the centre and states but also
protect and enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens against the arbitrary action of the
states. They also interpret the laws made by the legislature and they have the final say in
the validity of any legislative or executive action of the state if it contravenes or abridges
the fundamental rights of citizens. It is a unique feature identified only with the Indian
higher judiciary that it has the power to determine the validity of constitutional
amendments which perhaps is seen nowhere under any other constitution, written or
unwritten. This power of judicial review is also vested by the judiciary by implication, even
in certain quasi-judicial bodies like administrative tribunals.

Thus the judiciary generally performs one or many of the following functions in
constitutional democracies.

i)Interpreting the constitution final with due difference to the wishes of the framers of the
constitution;

ii)Upholding the federal principle of maintaining the balance between the various organs
of Government and also the centre and the states by whichever name they are called;
(Particularly in Federal Constitutions).

iii)Guarding and protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens. 3 Golden Research
Thoughts • Volume 2 Issue 3 • Sept 2012 Role Of Judiciary In The Democratic System Of
India.........

iv) Testing the validity of legislative, quasi-legislative, executive or quasi-judicial action

of the store on the touch stone of the constitution and,

v)Applying and interpreting the laws of the legislature. Article 32 and 226 confer on the
Supreme Court and the High Court respectively the power to issue direction, Order or writs
for achieving the objectives of those articles. The court have issued directions for various
purposes. In public interest litigation, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have issued
directions for appointing committees or for asking the government to carry out a scheme.
They may constitute specific orders to the parties to do or not to do something. For
example, directions in the Azad Rickshaw Puller case12 asked the Punjab National Bank
to advance loans to the Rickshaw Pullers and 13 contained a whole scheme for the
repayment to such loans. Directions in common cause V. India provided for how blood
should be collected, stored and given for transfusion and how blood transfusion could be
made free from hazards. Directions were gives to the government to disseminate
knowledge about 14 environment through sliders in cinema theaters or special lesson in
school or college . The Supreme Court 15 laid down direction as to how children of
prostitutes should be educated . Some of these direction have legislative effect. Law
making by the Supreme Court through directions has belied the legal theory regarding ratio
decedent and obiter dicter. In a case16 Chief Justice J.S. Verma said "The primary
responsibility for ensuring the safety and dignity of the citizens through suitable legislation,
and the creation of a mechanism for its enforcement is of the legislature and the executive.
When, however instances of violation of fundamental right of the citizens taken place then
some guidelines should be laid down for the protection of this right to fill the legislative
vacuum.

Democracy, liberty and the rule of law together represent the troika that is universally
accepted now as the index of a civil society. Democracy signifies a government of, by and
for the people. The protection of individual liberties follows the notion of democracy as a
natural corollary. This entails the espousal of a methodical configuration of laws by which
society might be regulated and different conflicting interests can be harmonized to the
fullest extent. This is why “the rule of law” is indispensable. It envisages the pre-eminence
of law as opposed to anarchy or capricious dictates. It involves equal accountability of all
before the law irrespective of high or low status. Democracy has been evolved through
centuries of experience amongst the people, who care for human person, dignity & rights
as the best and most acceptable form of good governance. It is a concept that occasions the
idea that all citizens have a right to participate in the decision-making processes that lead
to adoption of policies that are applicable to the societies. It also means that there are some
limits on majority decision-making and, hence the inevitability of certain basic rights being
protected. It rests on maintaining a necessary equilibrium between the numerous competing
interests, demands, constraints and compulsions that exist in any civic society eager for
development. India was founded as a democratic welfare State which would allow equal
opportunity to one and all, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, sex or any other form of
discrimination; a State where everyone would have equal opportunity for personal growth
and for contributing to the cause of nation. Democracy has been defined as “a Government
by the people, of the people and for the people” 4 . The founding fathers of modern India
took this theory further by reading the expression “for the people” as indicative of the
desirability to setup a governance that works “for the welfare of the people”.

The judicial system has an important role to play ultimately in ensuring better public
governance. There may be a plethora of regulations, rules and procedures but when
disputes arise, they have to be settled in a court of law. There is no area where the
judgments of Supreme Court have not played a significant contribution in the governance
– good governance – whether it be – environment, human rights, gender justice, education,
minorities, police reforms, elections and limits on constituent powers of Parliament to
amend the Constitution. This is only illustrative. Indian Judiciary has been pro-active and
has scrupulously and overzealously guarded the rights fundamental for human existence.
The scope of right to life has been enlarged so as to read within its compass the right to
live with dignity, right to healthy environment, right to humane conditions of work, right
to education, right to shelter and social security, right to know, right to adequate nutrition
and clothing and so on. This has been achieved by filling the vacuum in municipal law by
applying, wherever necessary, International instruments governing human rights. The
Supreme Court has, over the years, elaborated the scope of fundamental rights consistently,
strenuously opposing intrusions into them by agents of the State, thereby upholding the
rights and dignity of individual, in true spirit of good governance. In case after case, the
Court has issued a range of commands for law enforcement, dealing with an array of
aspects of executive action in general, and of police at the cutting edge level in particular.
Some instances :

(i) Reiterating the view taken in Motiram , the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon ,
expressed anguish at the “travesty of justice” on account of under-trial prisoners spending
extended time in custody due to unrealistically excessive conditions of bail imposed by the
magistracy or the police and issued requisite corrective guidelines, holding that “the
procedure established by law” for depriving a person of life or personal liberty (Article 21)
also should be “reasonable, fair and just”.

(ii) In Prem Shankar Shukla , the Supreme Court found the practice of using handcuffs
and fetters on prisoners violating the guarantee of basic human dignity, which is part of the
constitutional culture in India and thus not standing the test of equality before law (Article
14), fundamental freedoms (Article 19) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article
21). It observed that “to bind a man hand and foot’ fetter his limbs with hoops of steel;
shuffle him along in the streets, and to stand him for hours in the courts, is to torture him,
defile his dignity, vulgarise society, and foul the soul of our constitutional culture”.
Strongly denouncing handcuffing of prisoners as a matter of routine, the Supreme Court
said that to “manacle a man is more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanize him, and
therefore to violate his personhood….”. The rule thus laid down was reiterated in the case
of Citizens for Democracy.
(iii) In Icchu Devi Choraria 11 , the court declared that personal liberty is a most precious
possession and that life without it would not be worth living. Terming it as its duty to
uphold the right to personal liberty, the court condemned detention of suspects without trial
observing that “the power of preventive detention is a draconian power, justified only in
the interest of public security and order and it is tolerated in a free society only as a
necessary evil”.

(iv) In Nilabati Behera12 , the Supreme Court asserted the jurisdiction of the judiciary as
“protector of civil liberties” under the obligation “to repair damage caused by officers of
the State to fundamental rights of the citizens”, holding the State responsible to pay
compensation to the near and dear ones of a person who has been deprived of life by their
wrongful action, reading into Article 21 the “duty of care” which could not be denied to
anyone. For this purpose, the court referred to Article 9 (5) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which lays down that “anyone who has been the victim
of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”.

(v) In Joginder Kumar13 , the court ruled that “the law of arrest is one of balancing
individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand and individual duties, obligations
and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties of the single
individual and those of individuals collectively………”.

(vi) In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum14 , the Court asserted that “speedy
trial is one of the essential requisites of law” and that expeditious investigations and trial
only could give meaning to the guarantee of “equal protection of law” under Article 21 of
the Constitution. (vii) In PUCL 15 , the dicta in Article 17 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 was treated as part of the domestic law prohibiting
“arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence” and stipulating that
everyone has the right to protection of the law against such intrusions. (viii) In D.K. Basu16
, the Court found custodial torture “a naked violation of human dignity” and ruled that law
does not permit the use of third degree methods or torture on an accused person since
“actions of the State must be right, just and fair, torture for extracting any kind of
confession would neither be right nor just nor fair”. (ix) In Vishaka17 Supreme Court said
that “gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and right to work with
dignity, which is a universally recognized basic human right. The common minimum
requirement of this right has received global acceptance. In the absence of domestic law
occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment
of working women at all workplaces, the contents of international conventions and norms
are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to
work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the
safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein and for the formulation of guidelines
to achieve this purpose…. in the absence of enacted law to provide for the effective
enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual
harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment at all workplaces,
guidelines and norms are hereby laid down for strict observance at all workplaces or other
institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the
power available under Article 32 for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further
emphasized that this would be treated as 17 the law declared by the Supreme Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution.” The aforesaid cases are only few examples from numerous
judgments concerning human rights. Playing a pro-active role in the matters involving
environment, the judiciary in India has read the right to life enshrined in Article 21 as
inclusive of right to clean environment. It has mandated to protect and improve the
environment as found in a series of legislative enactments and held the State duty bound to
ensure sustainable development where common natural resources were properties held by
the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public as also
for the future generation. The Court has consistently expressed concern about impact of
pollution on ecology in present and in future and the obligation of the State to anticipate,
prevent and attach the causes of environmental degradation and the responsibility of the
State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the
environment18 .

Judicial activism has become a subject of controversy in India. Attempts have been made
to curb the power of courts as well as access to them6. In the past, several indirect methods
were used to discipline the judiciary, such as super session of judges or Transfer of
inconvenient judges. It has often been said that the courts usurped the functions allotted to
the other organs of Government. On the other hand the defenders of judicial activism say
that the courts have performed their legitimate function. According to former Chief Justice
of India A.M. Ahmadi, judicial activism is a necessary adjunct of the judicial function since
the 8 protection of public interest as opposed to private interest happens to be its main
concern . No court can interpret a statute, much less a constitution, in a mechanistic manner.
In the case of a statute, a court has to find out what was really intended by the authors and
in the case of a constitution, a court has to sustain its relevance to changing social,
economic and political scenarios and as Cardozo says, give to its words 'a '9 continuity of
life and expression .

How are understands judicial activism depends upon one's conception of the role of a
constitutional court in democracy. Those who conceive it narrowly, as being restricted to
mere application of the preexisting legal rules to the given situation, tend to consider even
a liberal or dynamic interpretation of a statute as activism. Those who conceive a wider
role for a constitutional court and expect it to perform the function of providing meaning
to various open-textured expressions in a written constitution and giving them new
meaning as required by the changing times are bound to consider judicial activism not as
an aberration but as a normal judicial function.
My purpose in these discourses is to examine the Indian experience of judicial review
during the sixty two years and trace the vicissitudes of judicial activism and the changing
role perception of the judiciary in Indian democracy. I shall try to understand what kind of
role was envisioned by our constitution for the judiciary and what has been the perception
of the Supreme Court of its own role under the constitution.

Over the period of last six decades, the Apex Court has transformed from the role of
'interpreter of law' to the role of 'maker of law'. An analysis of the judicial behaviour of the
court shows that, it has always been controversial. The performance of the Supreme Court
led higher judiciary in India has been uneven. In Role Of Judiciary In the fifties and sixties,
the judiciary was confronted with many issues involving the validity of agrarian reforms
introduced by the Parliament and state legislature. In view of the existence of the right to
property guaranteed higher to under article 19(1)(f) and 3110, the Supreme Court passed
certain difficulties to the state in realizing the goals enshrined in Articles 38-39 of the
constitution directing the state to provide social and economic justice to the people.

The Supreme Court has achieved an expansive judicial control in many areas of the
constitutional law, by exercise of the power of judicial review which became a classic case
of "brooding omni presence" the judicial attitude and behaviour of the courts after the 1980,
gave rise to many concepts like 'Judicial activism' "judicial supremacy" "Judicial
Absolutism" "Judicial liberalism" etc. in contra distinction with "Judicial self restraint",
"Judicial conservatism", "Judicial traditionalism" etc. As in order to evaluate the role of
the judiciary in a democracy, an overview has to be taken, of the evaluation of its present
status and power, this Author has chosen the present topic namely "Judicial Activism in
India" or "Role of Judiciary in Democratic System in India". The purpose of this study is
to trace the judicial power of the Supreme Court and to analyse the reasons for the activist
role, played by the Supreme Court in recent times.
 LOOPHOLES IN INDIAN JUDICIARY

Judiciary is an important organ of the government. In a quasi-federal, diverse and vast

country like India, where people are given certain rights and are expected to perform certain
duties, the need for a strong justice system rises. For any country, the judiciary is expected
to be fair, bias-free, and aloof and therefore, is supposed to be the most important organ.

Despite the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative bodies, the
Indian judicial system faces a lot of problems. The Judicial Courts in India have several
loopholes including lack of judges, the pendency of cases, lack of transparency, corruption,
and what not.

Pendency of cases
According to a recent report, approximately 2.81 crore cases are pending in the Indian
district courts. Data showed that district courts across the country are grappling with a
backlog of 2,881,25,066 civil and criminal cases in the period between July 1, 2015, to
June 30,2016. The intent of the judicial system has been defeated by a significant number
of cases pending in the Supreme Court and other lower courts. According to a well-known
proverb, "justice delayed is justice denied." Because of the gap between the salaries of
talented young lawyers and the fees of judicial officers, the judiciary is no longer attracting
the best legal talent.

Corruption
Like other agencies of the state, the legal system is also facing the problem of corruption.
In 2010 , a former law Minister declared that eight of sixteen former chief justices of India
(CJI) were corrupt and in 2014 a former supreme court judge alleged that three former CJIs
made "improper compromises" to let a corrupt High Court judge continue in office. Just
like the other organs of democracy, the executive and the legislative, the judiciary too has
been found guilty under the charges of corruption though corruption charges under
judiciary go unnoticed at times. A minister taking a bribe or distributing money during
elections may become a headline, but a courtroom clerk taking a bribe and altering the date
of the trial remains unnoticed.

Lack of transparency
The most important requisite for a good judicial system is fairness and impartiality. In
many cases, the integrity of justice is killed when a judge prefers his relative to be the case
winner over the one who actually deserves to win it. Other instances where lack of
transparency can be seen includes the appointment of judges. People having internal
relations or contacts are chosen over people who actually have the skills and talent.
In order to curb this unethical practice, National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) was established. It has altered the ability, merit, and other criteria for the
appointment of judges.

Appointment of judges

In the recent past there have been many debates around all over the nation regarding the
collegium system and the new system that the government wants to reduce for the
appointment of judges the NJAC (National judicial appointment commission). Well be it
the collegium system for the NJAC to be transparent enough to make the selection process
of judges clear and understandable to the common public. All democracy was swiftly
moving towards an open government and a citizen right to know hyphen and international
trend increasingly being supported by judicial decisions. Father coma the right to know a
part of the freedom of speech and expression and the present security system as
implemented by the collegium system violates this fundamental rights. The principle of
open trials and justice is highly essential for the fair administration of justice. The current
government led by prime minister Narendra Modi states that the introduction of a n j a c
shall be more transparency in appointment of judges full stop the supreme court of India
however denied the fact and said there is a need for the even higher level of law for the
appointment of judges as NJAC is not "perfect".
Accused under trial

Another drawback that arises from the above stated drawbacks is undertrials of the closest.
Precisely for those who have committed a crime it is ok but is it fair for a innocent to spend
more time in jail just for waiting for his train? The Indian jails are full of people undertrials;
they are confined to the jail still there cases come to the definite conclusion. Mostly they
end up spending more time in the jail than the actual term that might have had been awarded
to them had the cases been decided on time and assuming it was decided against them.

Complexity

For many rural Indians the Indian legal courts and justice system at to heavily Laden with
complex jargon and arduous demands of time and money. Traditional methods of conflict
resolution called Panchayat or dharmashastra, were discarded during British Colonial rule
and never reclaim after independence. These dispute-resolving mechanism in expensive,
required little specialised legal training, and worked in a cultural context that many Indians
could understand. They are no longer the part of Indian judicial system.

Lack of interaction among people and courts

For any Judiciary to be successful it is necessary that the general public must know the
mechanics of Judiciary. The society must participate in the court proceedings. However it
is a duty of a break as well to make show that they are participating in up to have the
knowledge related to the judiciary. The law officer and makers must be closed to the public
and seek their opinion on a particular or judgements.

MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO STRENGTHEN THE JUDICIAL

SYSTEM IN INDIA

Reform to Indian judiciary

As Justice Chelameswar claimed in the NJAC judgment in his dissent, the courts ought to
amend to maintain them. The government needs to improve the common man’s quality of
living. This attitude is honourable. In addition to upholding the rule of law, particularly by
taking stern steps against gang activity and religious intimidation, what the government
will do better is to make the judicial system operate quicker and more reliably in this area.
A Bloomberg Businessweek estimate states, “If the nation’s judges nonstop battled their
backlog — with no breaks to eat or sleep — and closed 100 cases per hour, it will take
more than 35 years to catch up.”
Here are a few suggestions for the reformation for the judiciary system in India.

1. Improve District Courts

2. Increase judicial capacity
3. Court management
4. Case management
5. Infrastructure
6. Faster trail
7. Merit appointment
8. Better investigation
9. Hierarchy reduction
Judiciary is essential for the State and a priority must be given to it. There has to be an
improvement in the funding for the justice system and an improvement in efficiency. This
along with reforms in civil and criminal practices, as well as reporting and regulatory
processes, will go a long way towards streamlining trials and reducing court delays.

Improve District Courts

There must be a bottom-up approach for the reformation of the judiciary in India. The
biggest concern is with the district courts where lakhs of people come into touch with the
system of administration of justice. Many administrative improvements and ad hoc
modifications at the Supreme Court and high courts will not affect the structure until the
concerns of those courts are resolved, and the ordinary litigant will have to endure the
slings and arrows of cruel fortune. A high-level team must tour each district court to
ascertain if the services and amenities are missing. It would shock many to learn that, for
many years, several court halls and registration rooms have not been whitewashed and
there is a breakdown of windows, tables, racks and almirahs. There are innumerable
pending cases in the lower courts. These must be tackled to have a better structure. More
number of judges must be appointed to the district courts than the high courts. This will
help to deal with the pending cases.

The Gram Nyayalayas Bill has been enacted to set up more trial courts at the intermediate
Panchayat level. The welcome feature is that the procedures have been kept simple and
flexible so that cases can be heard and disposed of within six months. It is also envisaged
that these courts will be mobile, to achieve the goal of bringing justice to people’s
doorsteps. Training and orientation of the judiciary, especially in frontier areas of
knowledge, like bio-genetics, IPR and cyber laws, need attention.

Increase judicial capacity

The first thing the government can do is to increase the number of magistrates. This method
is not a simple one. It requires action at every level. The number of judges needs to be
increased including the Supreme Court, the High Court, and the lower courts. To at least
double but preferably triple the number of judges. India needs a variety of amendments,
filling up all the existing vacancies. It is the most critical step towards solving India’s
serious lack of judicial ability. Indian judiciary needs a streamlined recruitment process
also.

Special attention must be paid towards the appointment of District Court judges and their
transfer. We need to provide more vacancies for judges, especially at the lower levels of
the judiciary. District judges with legal degrees and postgraduate degrees come to the
service. People and women with outstanding intelligence are quite frequent. We
accumulate experience as judges over the years and then their appointment as high court
judges are postponed because of the district judiciary’s corruption. Relatively unimportant
jurisdictions are granted to the district court. They are also viewed with less deference by
Bar owners. Very few district judges have made it to the Supreme Court except for maybe
a few well-known and extraordinary instances. Gates to the above platform are often
opened by considerations other than competence. They are neglected based on religion or
status. Very qualified judges are superseded by these factors. Lower judiciary requires a
structured procurement mechanism that is handled by full-time supervisors rather than
judges. That is, our court needs a committed Human Resources Director. Vacancy rates in
the lower courts are about 25 per cent, and in high courts, about 40 per cent. Indian courts
are therefore only operating at just 75 per cent of their already extremely poor capacity.
And so the new openings must be filled out immediately. This will help to reform the
judicial capacity of the system.

Court management

The Indian judiciary needs a dedicated branch of the registrar, administration, and
management. India today dreams to become a completely digitized society. We were, to a
large extent, productive. But oddly enough, the Indian judiciary is left behind. This would
help save a great deal of time to and from paperwork. A computerized program should be
in place which minimizes human discretion.

Courts need a separate list of court/administrative personnel to better streamline the legal
process. Today this sort of automated procedure is used for many government programs
such as passport issuance. But courts, which are much more loaded and pendent than other
public services, continue to operate without a sensible administrative infrastructure. For
example, also in higher courts, judges spend precious time arranging trials and times and
appearances before the court.

India needs to create a judicial service to provide the resources required to ensure the
smooth running of courts. In the UK, the service has a qualified workforce that works to
support the court system, ranging from recruiting procedures, internal infrastructure
management, and caseload delivery systems. India requires a specific framework,
preferably at the state level, to consider and implement the judicial system’s resource
needs, staffed by administrators and helmed by retired magistrates.

Case management
Case management is a systematic method for monitoring resources and incidents in a
dispute as it moves through the court system, from inception to settlement. Our politicians
tend to have the idea that it is not possible to dedicate attention to case management because
of the overwhelming number of outstanding litigation. However, this is not valid. During
a lecture given at the Delhi Judicial Academy around 15 years ago, a U.S. federal judge
who practised case management told the judges that he had started with about 3,000 cases
in his jurisdiction and reduced this number to about 300 in three years.

India is famed for issuing adjournments and encouraging parties to manipulate judicial
delays. This can be addressed by modifying legal rules to restrict the number of
circumstances that adjournments are granted. Justice allows the court to provide plenty of
time for thorough trials to include adjournments in emergency cases. In the Indian scenario,
we achieve neither justice nor productivity.

Modifying the evidence and the procedures of the court and reducing the number of delays,
continuations and adjournments permitted by the court can help in management.

To impose fines or sanctions on the party which delays and demands continuance and
adjournment. Penalties and fines on parties failing to file the required papers or evidence
on time. To ensure adherence, the timeline for the completion of the case requires a clear
set of penalties, especially for the party deviating from the timeline. The data or records of
each judge for the disposal of cases should be made public and ideally incorporated in
decisions to raise judges to a higher bench.

Infrastructure

Since the colonial period, the physical architecture of Indian courts has not improved much.
Both in overall scale and the number of courtrooms, courts need to expand, but they still
need to enlarge to meet the additional personnel needed in the back office and registrar, as
well as physically handle the number of lawyers and parties or the regular court footfall.
Specific items, such as the number of bathrooms, parking spaces, waiting rooms, etc., did
not increase to keep up with the population or a load of incidents. Even the courtroom at
lower levels lacks basic infrastructure. This has to be looked upon for the betterment of the
system. To deal with the rise in the number of people and cases represented, Indian courts
must physically increase in size.

Faster trail

There are innumerable pending cases in India. The cardinal issue with the current judiciary
is that the trials for such cases are so slow that it might take ages for them to be resolved.
The judges must have a faster trail process in India. A successful start will be to declare
the creation of a new court in each district, naming thousands of new magistrates. The Law
Commission has consistently recommended hearing cases, avoiding postponements and
arriving at speedy verdicts. That is only possible if the case-load per judge is sufficient. It
will be a big move forward to create an Indian Judiciary Service and create a wide pool of
qualified, committed judges that will increase the pool of talent available for promotion to
the higher court. A further goal is improving the system of selecting judges and keeping
their work to account. The executive and the legislature will play a part in the process.

Judicial delays must be cut down. Citizens should have easy access to the courts. This
includes successive Chief Justice, judges, governments (central and state), prosecutors,
registry workers, scholars, and academics — working together to ensure that litigants have
better access to justice.

The answer to dealing with the enormous backlog of cases is not just increasing the number
of judges or filling vacancies, though both would help. Innovative approaches such as
developing new courts of appeal, exploring IT technologies that can simplify workflows
as reported by India’s Chief Justice, constructing improved facilities that enable access to
courtrooms are some ways forward to chip away from the current backlog. A mission to
that end must be set up under the leadership of the Chief Justice. This mission will ensure
that the Indian judiciary is known not only for the eloquence of its substantive judgments
but also for its ability to deliver justice quickly, independently and in a way that keeps the
public’s faith intact. Much as Chief Justice Kania had foreseen when, in 1950, the court
first opened its doors to the public.

Merit appointment

By the term merit appointment, we mean that the appointment of judges must be based on
their qualification and their ability. The Indian judiciary, in contrast, tends to appoint the
judges based on caste, race and religion. It is a shame that a system that appoints judges on
these merits, and as is seen to do so, is eluding us, with two approaches being tried —
executive-led and judicial collegium-led. That is because criteria are not explicitly set out.
The perfect procedure should be a board of appointments, composed of the Chief Justice,
two senior judges and the executive members. That will ensure checks and balances, as
well as speed up the entire cycle by providing a skin in the game to the government,
requiring it to be kept responsible for the decisions taken. It will also uphold judicial
primacy and be in line with the need for judicial freedom.

The system must also consider women in the appointment. It is so heart-breaking to see
that despite so many women in law school, very few join the litigation field. In any
profession, the few who have to face the prejudices are mostly women. A common
corollary is a minimal appearance at the table. When one moves up the current ladder the
difference decreases. Just 10.89 per cent of high court judges as of 23 March 2018 were
women. Today the number in the Supreme Court is 9.09 per cent. When we go up the
ladder of the judiciary the number of women fall sharply. The pyramid has to go on for the
betterment of the judiciary structure in the country.

Better investigation
India lacks an investigation policy. A lot of innocents who are falsely accused get punished
due to the lack of investigation. They suffer from mental abuse and harassment, There are
several instances where this factor has been proven. A trial court on January 6, 2018,
dismissed a lawsuit filed against a senior scientist at the electronics department, Narayan
Waman Nerurkar, dating back to 1987 as entirely untenable. Dr Nerurkar had been accused
of releasing a German radar test paper that his maker intended to sell to the Indian army.
A photocopy of the report was sent by a courier service to a foreign address who, for some
unknown reason, wanted to open the packet it was intended to deliver overseas and
discovered a classified paper about military affairs, and told a particular CBI officer who
was then present at the Bombay office of the courier company for some unexplained
reason.

Nambi Narayanan’s story is legendary. A scientist leading India’s efforts to build a

cryogenic rocket engine at the Indian Space Research Organization, Thiruvananthapuram,
he was falsely accused, along with some others, of leaking technical details of the project
in 1994. He spent fifty days in prison, he said he was being tortured. In 1998, he was cleared
by a CBI investigation. But it ruined his reputation, his life was in total disarray. The
National Human Rights Commission has directed Kerala’s government to pay him Rs 1
crore compensation.

Hierarchy reduction

The term ‘higher judiciary’ is difficult to embrace. The term “higher” connotes a hierarchy
in itself. When one speaks of the higher judiciary, does one talk of the inter-court or intra-
court setup? A federal judge is better than a Munsiff. A section bench is higher than a
regular bench inside a Supreme Court and a separate bench higher than the section as well
as the regular bench from the precedent point of view. The Supreme Court is better in that
way than a district court, given that appeals flow to the former.

Otherwise, there is little difference between the essence of the duties done at any stage by
any magistrate. Artificial distinctions are sometimes made intra-court, particularly with the
Chief Justice’s office. There is no other difference in the Constitution. By naming the
“lower” judiciary the district courts’ and the magistrates’, severe disservice is done to their
role and significance in the administration of justice. We will discontinue using terms
steeped in the hierarchy. Overall, the courts should be more aware of the transformative
force of words than any other organization

Conclusion
The Supreme Court plays a vital role in India Democracy. It is the highest court in the
Indian judiciary system and one of the three coequal branches of the national government.
It has primary, though not exclusive responsibility for interpreting the Indian constitution
and for defining the scope and content of its key position. As a principal guardian of the
constitution, the courts is frequently called upon to assess the validity of statutes passed by
legislative majority. However there is no evidence to show that the Supreme Court has
been trying to achieve judicial supremacy of the cost of the legislature and the executive in
general. Infact the court has been acting as a catalyst to activate them in discharging their
constitutional obligations. Judicial activism appears to be a temporary phenomenon
because it has never been consistent any where in the world. The present day activism of
the Supreme Court may read in to background once there is a strong government and
responsible legislature. And the judicial activism of the Supreme Court has also contributed
immensely for the development of specific areas in the constitutional law after 1980 which
ultimately helped the weaker sections downtrodden and oppressed sections of the society
in the long run. It is a fact that the judiciary led by the Supreme Court has at times made
forays into the typical political arena but it has retracted to its own jurisdiction because of
self realization and public out cry. So in the end this study revealed that the Supreme Court
has by and large played its constitutional role very well and has always upheld the principal
of constitutionalism. The judiciary may remind itself that under no constitution can the
power of courts go for to save the people from their own failure. Judicial creativity even
when it takes the form of judicial creativity even when it takes the form of judicial activism
should not result in rewriting the constitution or any legislative enactments. The courts
must stay-off from political arena by not donning the political role. They should remember
that the court can not save the country but they may be able only to buy the time necessary
for revitalization of other institution of government. Though it is a very well established
fact that the judicial activism of the Supreme Court has helped in enforcing the rights and
interests of the citizens, and also in keeping the other branches of the government within
their constitutional boundaries, the judiciary should constantly remind itself that the need
of the hour is the supremacy of the constitutional and not the supremacy of the judiciary.
So to sum up the judicial activism in India, it will be very appropriate to quote the words
of Dr. A.S. Anand, Chief Justice of India who said : "26 January 2000 marks the completion
of fifty years of the Supreme Court of India. At this juncture, it is time to weigh what it has
contributed and where it has lagged behind. This all the move so when the Supreme Court
is the custodian of the Indian Constitution and exercises judicial control over the acts of
both the legislature and the executive."