Judiciary Chapter Notes | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

Structure, Hierarchy of Courts, and Legal Offices In India

Structure & Hierarchy of Courts in India

• The Constitution of India establishes the framework for the judicial system.
• India has a federal system where law-making powers are divided between the Centre and the States.
• Despite this division, the Constitution provides for a single integrated judiciary to administer both Central and State laws.
• The Supreme Court, located in New Delhi, is the highest court in India.
• Below the Supreme Court are various High Courts at the state level, which serve one or more states.
• The High Courts are followed by district and subordinate courts, commonly referred to as the lower courts.
• In addition to these courts, there are specialized tribunals that handle specific types of disputes, such as those related to labor, consumer issues, and service matters.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India:

• Established on January 28, 1950, replacing the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
• The Supreme Court originally had a Chief Justice and 7 Judges, now with a total of 31 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.

High Courts:

• India has 24 High Courts that serve at the state and union territory levels.
• Each High Court has authority over either a state, a union territory, or a group of states and union territories.
• Below the High Courts, there is a system of lower courts that includes civil and criminal courts, as well as specialized tribunals.
• The Madras High Court in Chennai, the Bombay High Court in Mumbai, the Calcutta High Court in Kolkata, and the Allahabad High Court in Allahabad were the first four High Courts established in India.

District and Subordinate Courts:

• Lower Courts are the judicial bodies that operate beneath the High Courts in the hierarchy of the Indian judiciary system. 
• They encompass District and subordinate courts. 
• Each state is divided into judicial districts, each overseen by a District and Sessions Judge. 
• When the judge handles a civil case, they are referred to as a District Judge, and in criminal cases, they are called a Sessions Judge.
•  In metropolitan areas, the District Judge may also be known as a Metropolitan Sessions Judge.
• District Judge is the highest judicial authority below a High Court judge and may work with Additional District Judges depending on the judicial workload. 
• The District Court has appellate jurisdiction and supervises all subordinate courts beneath it.
• On the civil side, the subordinate courts under the District Court include, in ascending order:
  1. Junior Civil Judge Court
  2.Principal Junior Civil Judge Court
  3. Senior Civil Judge Courts (also called sub-Courts)
• On the criminal side, subordinate courts include, in ascending order:
  1. Second Class Judicial Magistrate Court
  2.First Class Judicial Magistrate Court
  3.Chief Judicial Magistrate Court
• Additionally, Munsiff  Courts are part of this hierarchy and are the lowest in handling civil matters, functioning below the subordinate courts. Their pecuniary limits, which define the court's ability to hear cases up to a certain monetary claim, are set by the respective State Governments.

BENCH

• A bench is a group of judges working together on a legal case.
• The lawyers involved in the case are called the members at the bar.

Types of Benches

• Division Bench: This consists of two or three judges.
• Constitutional Bench: This includes five or more judges, and can sometimes have up to thirteen judges.

Tribunals:

•  The Indian judiciary includes semi-judicial or quasi-judicial bodies involved in dispute resolution.
•  These bodies may consist of administrative officers or individuals without a legal background but still function in a judicial capacity to resolve legal matters.
• Tribunals are established either by constitutional mandate or through specific laws enacted by the legislature.
•  The purpose of these tribunals is to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution and to reduce the burden on regular courts.
• Examples of tribunals include:
  1.  Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government employees.
  2. State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) for state government employees.
  3.Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for disputes in the telecom sector.
  4. National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental disputes.
•  Some tribunals work in conjunction with regulators, which are specialized government agencies responsible for overseeing law compliance in specific sectors.
•  For instance, the TDSAT operates alongside the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to resolve telecom disputes and formulate relevant policies.
• These tribunals play a complementary role to the courts in upholding law and justice in society.

Salient Features of Indian Judiciary

India as a Common Law Jurisdiction:

• India follows the common law system, deriving from British tradition.
• Courts in India create and develop laws through decisions, becoming binding precedents for lower courts.

• Beyond administering civil and criminal justice, courts and judges are key in maintaining the federal structure of the country.
• India follows a common law system, where courts can create laws through judicial decisions, unlike in civil law systems.
• Civil law systems where only legislature or executive has the power to create laws and rules. This system is being followed in countries such as Germany, Russia and Continental Europe.
• The Indian judiciary's reliance on the common law model reinforces the significant role of courts in law and justice.

Adversarial Model of Dispute Resolution:

Indian courts follow the  adversarial system of adjudication, unlike the  inquisitorial model used in many civil law countries.

 Adversarial system,
1. In this system the role of  lawyers representing each party is crucial.
2. Lawyers from both sides present their cases to a neutral judge, who then makes a decision based on the merits of the arguments.

Inquisitorial system
1. Judges take a more active role in the proceedings.
2. Judges in the inquisitorial model have the authority to inquire and investigate the case, similar to a police role.
3. The decision-making process in the inquisitorial system relies on the combined efforts of both lawyers and the judge in determining the course of the case or trial.

 Attorney General of India and Law Officers in India

Law Offices and Officers in India are appointed by the central and state governments to advise the executive wing.

 These law officers derive their mandate either from the Constitution or  statutory enactments and rules.  

Attorney General of India

• First legal officer of the country, appointed by the President of India under  Article 76 of the Constitution.
• Term of office : Holds office during the pleasure of the President.
• Qualifications : Must be qualified to be appointed as a Supreme Court Judge, with sufficient legal practice or relevant judicial experience.
• Duties :
  1.  Provides legal advice to the Government of India on legal matters.
  2. Performs other legal duties as assigned by the President.
  3. Has the  right to appear  in courts (known as "right to audience").
  4.Can participate in  Parliamentary proceedings, but without the right to vote.
•  Assisted by a  Solicitor General  and  four Additional Solicitors General.
•  Positions of Solicitor General and Additional Solicitors General are not mentioned in the Constitution but are governed by parliamentary rules.

Advocate General (State Level)

• Senior law officer and legal adviser to the state government.
•  Appointed by the Governor under  Article 165  of the Constitution.
• Duties:
  1. Acts as the chief legal advisor  of the state.
  2. Represents the state in courts either personally or through law officers/pleaders.
• Qualifications: Same as a High Court judge.
•  Holds office at the pleasure of the Governor, who also determines their remuneration.
• Additional Advocate Generals  are appointed to assist the Advocate General's office.

Constitution, Roles, and Impartiality 

The Indian judiciary's authority and duties stem from the Constitution which till date remains the fundamental legal text serving as the bedrock of Indian democracy.

1. Independence of Judiciary as a Constitutional Safeguard

• Article 50 of the Indian Constitution stresses the significance of an independent judiciary, distinct from the executive and legislative branches.
• Independence ensures the rule of law, fosters good governance, and upholds a just society.

Reasons for Judicial Independence

• Watchdog Role in Democracy
  1. The judiciary monitors and maintains checks and balances over the executive and legislative branches.
  2. It acts as a mediator to prevent any government organ from exercising excessive power, which could harm societal or individual interests.
  3. Example: Police powers in criminal investigations are checked to protect the rights of the accused under Article 20(3), which ensures that no one is compelled to testify against themselves.
• Ensuring Constitutional Freedoms
  1. Judiciary interprets and protects freedoms such as free speech and peaceful assembly without external influence.
  2. Example: The judiciary plays a crucial role in cases involving protests and government actions, such as peaceful demonstrations about social issues like crime against women.
• Guardian of Fundamental Rights
  1. Judiciary ensures the protection of fundamental rights, which was essential during India’s transition from a feudal to a democratic society.
  2. These rights include civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights (e.g., non-discrimination, freedom of religion, protection of minority rights).
• Expanded Interpretation of Rights
  1. The judiciary has expanded the meaning of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to cover issues like:
  i)Right to Livelihood: The Supreme Court ruled that street vendors have the right to operate as it is linked to their livelihood.
  ii)Right to Food: The Court has also held that the elderly, disabled, and destitute have a right to food as part of their survival rights under Article 21.
• Role in Criminal Justice
  1.Judicial independence ensures fair trials, even for foreign nationals or individuals accused of crimes against the state, such as terrorists.
• Due Process of Law
  1. Independence is crucial for the respect of due process, which means that the state must adhere to fairness, liberty, and legal rights.
  2. Historically, any disturbance to judicial independence has impacted governance and citizens' rights negatively.
•  Thus even in challenging political situations, judicial independence is key to upholding citizens' rights.
• It remains a fundamental principle in modern democracies to protect due process and ensure impartial governance.

2. Role of Indian Judiciary

• Indian judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, High Court, Sub-ordinate Courts, and other Tribunals.

• The Constitution elaborates on the roles, compositions, powers, and procedures of these courts.

Different Roles of the Supreme Court of India:

Adjudicator and Interpreter:

• The Supreme Court acts as both an adjudicator and interpreter of the Constitution, primarily through its original and appellate jurisdiction.
• Original Jurisdiction (Article 131)
  i) Deals with disputes between the Union and one or more states, or between two or more states, involving legal rights (e.g., sharing of natural resources).
• Original Jurisdiction( Article 32)
  i) It covers the protection of fundamental rights, allowing the Court to issue writs for their enforcement (writ jurisdiction).
• Appellate Jurisdiction
  i) Appeals can be made to the Supreme Court from High Courts in civil and criminal cases, provided they involve substantial constitutional questions.
• Special Leave to Appeal (Article 136)
  i) Grants the Court the discretion to hear appeals from any judgment, decree, or order made by any court or tribunal in India.
• Advisory Role (Article 143)
  i) The President of India can seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance through Presidential Reference.
  ii) The Court’s advisory opinion is not binding, and the Court may refuse to answer if the issue is socio-economic or political.

 Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Constitutional Imperatives: These allow the Supreme Court to resolve disputes from lower courts, individuals with writ jurisdiction, and the President of India.
• Locus Standi Relaxation: The Supreme Court has broadened its locus standi, enabling public-spirited individuals and organizations to seek justice on behalf of victims.
• Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court's proactive approach in cases of public importance, such as addressing issues like negligence in child care homes.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This extraordinary jurisdiction allows citizens to approach the Court through writs or letters, following specific guidelines set by the Court.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar: The first PIL in 1979, initiated by a public interest lawyer to address the inhumane conditions in Bihar jails, leading to landmark decisions on legal aid and speedy trials.
• PIL Issues: PILs cover a wide range of topics, including socio-economic rights, legal entitlements, environmental concerns, and political reforms.

Characteristics of PILs:

• Non-Adversarial Nature: PILs are not adversarial but focus on social change.
• Citizen and Representative Standing: PILs allow third parties to approach the Court, expanding access to justice.
• PIL Nature: PIL is designed to be remedial, aiming to establish a dynamic, welfare-oriented judicial model.
• PIL and Fundamental Rights: PIL integrates Directive Principles, transforming them into enforceable fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, enhancing citizens' access to justice.
• Impact of PILs:
  • PILs create new rights and laws, democratizing access to justice and fostering democracy in India.
  • PIL reinforces the judiciary's role as a monitor and watchdog, enhancing the quality of various social institutions like jails, protective homes, and mental asylums.
  • However, PILs have been susceptible to misuse for personal gains, leading to frivolous litigations and criticisms for judicial overreach and encroachment on legislative functions.

High Courts and Lower Courts

High Courts:

• High Courts serve as judicial administration bodies at the state level, with powers to issue orders, directions, and writs, akin to the Supreme Court.
• They can issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for upholding Fundamental Rights and other purposes similar to the Supreme Court of India.
• High Courts also exercise superintendence over all courts within their jurisdiction, setting rules and regulations for their functioning.

Lower Courts:

• Lower courts, including district and subordinate courts, handle civil and criminal cases at the grassroots level.
• They establish facts in cases, with district courts serving as initial forums for disputes, following which matters may proceed to higher appellate courts.
• Appellate courts, including High Courts, focus on interpreting laws and ensuring their correct application.

3. Independence & Impartiality of Indian Judiciary

• The independence of the Indian judiciary is crucial for its functioning. It ensures that judges can work without bias.
• Independence is maintained through the Constitution, focusing on judges' unbiased conduct.
• The theory of 'constituent mechanism'of independence of judiciary defines judiciary's independence in terms of the independence of its judges. Judges ought to function in an unbiased manner and scholars as pointed out by Simon Shetreet (The Culture of Judicial Independence;

  Judges on Trial).

• Independence and impartiality are distinct concepts: independence refers to the institution, while impartiality refers to the judges.
• Impartiality is integral within the broader framework of judicial independence to maintain integrity in the democratic process.
• Constitutional Framework: The Indian Constitution contains provisions to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.

Provisions  Relating to the  Institution of Judiciary

• The Constitution ensures that the vast powers of the Supreme Court cannot be restricted by Parliament.
• Parliament has limited authority to modify the pecuniary limits for appeals to the Supreme Court in civil matters.
• The Supreme Court has extensive appellate jurisdiction and additional powers to support its efficient functioning.
• Both the Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record meaning they can maintain records and have the authority to punish for contempt of court against the judiciary or judges.

Provisions Relating to the Judges

• Judges have security of tenure until retirement which is set at 62 for High court and 65 for Supreme Court. Post-retirement, judges cannot practice in the same or equivalent courts to avoid undue influence.
• Removal of judges is stringent, ensuring security of tenure except for proven misbehavior or incapacity.
• Judges' salaries are fixed, drawn from the consolidated fund, and cannot be altered to their disadvantage, except during a financial emergency.
• The judicial conduct of judges is immune from scrutiny by other constitutional bodies and cannot be discussed in Parliament or state legislatures, except during impeachment proceedings.
• Supreme Court has authority over its establishment, appointments, and staff, ensuring its independence.

Appointments, Trainings, Retirement and Removal of Judges

1. Appointment of Judges

Supreme Court Judges (Article 124)

• Appointment by the President: The President appoints judges after consulting Supreme Court and High Court judges as deemed necessary.
•   Chief Justice Consultation: For appointing judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India must be consulted.
•  Qualifications for Supreme Court Judge:
  i)  Should have an Indian citizenship.
  ii) At least 5 years as a High Court judge, or  At least 10 years as a High Court advocate, or  A distinguished jurist as recognized by the President.

High Court Judges (Article 217)

•  Appointment by the President: The President appoints judges in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court (in case of appointing a judge other than the Chief Justice).
•    Qualifications for High Court Judge:
  i) Should have an Indian citizenship.
  ii)  At least 10 years of holding a judicial office in India, or At least 10 years as an advocate in a High Court or multiple High Courts.

District and Subordinate Judges (Article 233)

•    Appointment by the Governor: District judges are appointed by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court having jurisdiction over the state.
•    Qualifications for District Judge:
  i)   Member of the judicial service of the state, or
  ii) At least 7 years of practice as a lawyer at the bar.

Current Practice:

•  Despite the clear constitutional mandate, the process of appointing judges remains complex and has undergone changes in practice. 
• Currently, the  collegium model is used for the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court and High Courts, even though it is not constitutionally mandated and was created through case laws.
• For  Supreme Court appointments, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) consults the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, and sends recommendations to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, who forwards them to the Prime Minister for advising the President.
• For High Court appointments, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of the High Court and two senior-most judges. Recommendations are sent to the Chief Minister and Governor of the state, who forward their views to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The CJI, in consultation with two Supreme Court judges, sends final recommendations to the Union Minister of Law and Justice.
•  Seniority plays an important role in appointing and elevating judges, especially for the position of Chief Justice. For initial appointments from the lower judiciary, seniority matters, whereas for advocates from the bar, relative merit  is considered based on their judgments and cases.

Tracing the Historical Debate on the issue of Appointment of Judges

• The appointment of judges has long been connected to judicial independence, leading to a continuous power struggle between the executive and judiciary.
• In the 14th Law Commission Report (1958), concerns were raised by M.C. Setalvad, highlighting how executive appointments often conflicted with judiciary recommendations.
• Appointments were influenced by political, regional, and communal factors, often neglecting the most qualified candidates.
• The Commission recommended enhancing consultation between the executive and judiciary to improve the process.

Evolution of the Collegium System through Judicial Decisions:

• Three landmark judicial decisions, known as the Three Judges Cases, played a pivotal role in shaping the modern collegium system.
• The first Judges case (1981) favored executive primacy in appointments, allowing the President to reject the CJI's recommendations with solid reasons.
• The second Judges case (1993) shifted the focus to CJI's primacy in appointments, emphasizing conformity with the CJI's final opinion and reducing political influence.
• Subsequent years saw some confusion with unilateral CJI appointments and reduced presidential involvement.
• In 1998, the Supreme Court clarified the need for a consultative process in appointing judges, stating that the CJI's opinion should be formed after consulting a body of senior judges.
• The collegium system, while prevalent, is not constitutionally mandated, leading to skepticism regarding its legality.
• To address these concerns, an amendment has been proposed to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which would replace the collegium system.
  Introduction of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC):
  1 .The JAC, chaired by the CJI, would include senior Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, the Law Secretary as convenor, and two 'eminent persons' nominated by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and CJI.
  2. The Bill, introduced in the Rajya Sabha in August 2013, aims to enhance transparency and objectivity in the appointment process by involving both the executive and judiciary.
  3. The composition and functions of the JAC in selecting judges would be enshrined in the Constitution upon legislative approval in the Indian Parliament.

2. Judicial Training

• National Judicial Academy is a government-funded institute for training judges in India.
• Established in 1993, located in Bhopal with a registered office in New Delhi.
• Aims at suggesting judicial reforms and enhancing efficiency in judicial decisions.
• National Judicial Education Strategy (NJES) provides education to High Court judges, District Judiciary, and State Judicial Academies.
• Training includes conferences, workshops, and seminars on core judicial skills and substantive law.
• Focuses on improving Indian judges' skills registry and access to judicial decisions.

3. Retirement of Judges

• The retirement age for Supreme Court judges in India is 65 years, while High Court judges retire at 62 years. The retirement age for District Court judges is determined by state governments based on specific service rules.  
•  There is an ongoing debate regarding the retirement age of judges, with the 114th Amendment Bill, 2010, pending in Parliament, proposing to raise the retirement age for High Court judges from 62 to 65.  
•  The Venkatachalliah Committee, established in 2000 to review the Constitution's functioning, recommended increasing the retirement age for Supreme Court judges from 65 to 68, citing global standards.  
• Proposals to enhance judges' retirement age aim to help them perform better, similar to their international counterparts.  
•  Many experienced lawyers hesitate to accept judicial positions due to the lower retirement age, which discourages them from leaving their legal practice. Increasing the retirement age could incentivize more senior advocates to become judges.  
•  The relatively early retirement age in India is associated with declining judicial service quality and challenges in meeting workload demands. Increasing the retirement age is suggested as a solution to these issues.  

Supreme Court judges in the United States do not have a designated retirement age. In Australia, judges in the High Court retire at the age of 70. The retirement age for judges in the Supreme Court of Canada is set at 75. Likewise, in the UK Supreme Court, judges also retire at 75. In South Africa, the Constitutional Court mandates retirement at 70 years of age or after 12 years of service.

4. Removal of Judges

• Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed through an impeachment process, which is outlined in the Constitution of India.  
•  The grounds for impeachment include proven misbehaviour or incapacity, as defined by the Judges Inquiry Act, 1986.  
• An inquiry into the removal grounds is conducted by a three-member committee comprising two judges: one from the Supreme Court and one from the Chief Justice of the High Court. If the inquiry is regarding a High Court judge, both members will be judges from the Supreme Court.  
•  Based on the committee's findings, the Chief Justice of India makes a recommendation to the President of India for impeachment.  
•  If the President accepts the recommendation, the impeachment proposal must be introduced in Parliament, requiring the support of 100 MPs in Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in Rajya Sabha.  
• The copy of the proposal is given to the concerned judge before the proceeding starts in the Parliament of India. 
•  The impeachment process in Parliament is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses, with separate voting.  
•  If the motion passes, the President of India formally announces the impeachment.  
•  The impeachment process is lengthy and complex, with only one successful case in Indian history: Justice Soumitra Sen, who was impeached in 2011 for misappropriation of funds.  
•  An earlier attempt in 1991 to impeach Justice V Ramaswamy failed due to insufficient votes.  
•  For judges in the lower judiciary, a District Judge or Additional District Judge can be removed by the State Government after consulting with the High Court.  

 Courts and Judicial Review

1. Introduction

(a) Judicial Review - General

• Judicial review is a legal practice where a court can examine an executive or legislative act to check if it aligns with the constitution.
• In some countries like the United States, France, and Canada, courts can invalidate laws or acts that conflict with the constitution.
• However, in the United Kingdom, courts cannot nullify legislation.
• Separation of powers ensures distinct responsibilities among legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
• Checks and balances prevent any branch from dominating others.
• Judicial review helps maintain this balance and safeguards the division of powers.

(b) Separation of Powers - General

• In most democratic countries, the Constitution divides power horizontally among three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
• The separation of powers doctrine ensures that each branch has its own specific powers and duties, based on the Constitution's structure.
• The Constitution also establishes checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful or misusing its authority.
• Each branch keeps the others in check to prevent one branch from becoming too dominant, thus avoiding a concentration of power in any single branch.
• Benefits of the separation of powers include:
  1) Liberty by preventing power from being concentrated in one branch
  2) Efficiency through greater expertise and more streamlined operations
  3) Democratic discussion through checks and balances.
• Judicial review powers enable the judiciary to uphold checks and balances and maintain the separation of powers among the government's branches.
• In India, the separation of powers is established under the parliamentary system outlined in the Constitution, which includes three branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary.
  i) The executive branch is composed of the President, Prime Minister, and bureaucracy.
  ii) The legislative branch consists of both houses of Parliament: the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States).
  iii)The judiciary, with the Supreme Court as its highest authority, is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and operates independently from the other two branches.

(c) Doctrine of Division of Power

• The doctrine of division of powers delineates the responsibilities and law-making authority between the federal (central) government and state or provincial governments.
• Federal government has exclusive powers over certain subjects, such as national defense and foreign affairs, while state governments typically handle matters like prisons and direct taxes.
• This doctrine outlines specific subjects or items on which either the federal or state governments can legislate, as well as common items where both may hold legislative powers.
• Courts possess the authority for judicial review, allowing them to declare any law unconstitutional if it violates the established division of powers.

2. Scope of Judicial Review in India

• Judicial review is crucial in India, preserving constitutional principles and supremacy.
• Supreme Court and High Courts review legislative, administrative actions, and fundamental rights.
• Key doctrines employed include proportionality, legitimate expectation, reasonableness, and natural justice.
• It's applied in protecting fundamental rights, legislative competence, and fairness in executive actions.
• Essentially, the scope of judicial review in courts in India has developed with respect to three issues: 
  1) protection of fundamental rightsas guaranteed in the Constitution;

  2) matters concerning the legislative competence between the centre and states
  3) fairness in executive acts

(a) Individual and Group Rights

• Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution prohibits the State from enacting laws that take away or diminish the Fundamental Rights outlined in Part III; any law violating this clause is void.
• B. R. Ambedkar referred to Article 13(2) as the "heart of the Constitution," emphasizing its significance.
• This article grants the courts the power of judicial review concerning Fundamental Rights.
• Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights and allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement.
• The Supreme Court can issue various writs to enforce these rights, including:
  1. Habeas Corpus: Orders the release of unlawfully detained individuals.
  2. Mandamus: Directs a public authority to fulfill its duty.
  Prohibition: Prevents a subordinate court from proceeding with a case.
  3. Quo Warranto: Directs a person to vacate an unlawfully occupied office.
  4. Certiorari: Removes a case from a subordinate court for higher review.
• Article 226 serves a similar purpose for High Courts, allowing for the issuance of writs to enforce Fundamental Rights at the state level.
• Courts' Role: Courts have expanded the concept of locus standi to allow enforcement of fundamental rights for those facing barriers like poverty or social and economic challenges.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL, also known as Social Action Litigation (SAL), enables any concerned citizen to petition or write to courts on behalf of victims of human rights violations. This approach broadens access to justice for marginalized individuals.

(b) Centre-State Relations

• Legislative Competence: Article 246 of the Constitution delineates the legislative powers between the Centre and States.
• Union List: Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate on matters in the Union List.
• Concurrent List: Both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws on Concurrent List subjects.
• State List: State Legislatures have exclusive power to legislate on State List matters.
• Division of Powers: Judicial review ensures a clear division of legislative powers, preventing undue central dominance over states.

(c) Fairness in Executive Actions

• Judicial reviews consider principles like natural justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and legitimate expectation.
• Audialterampartem: Latin phrase meaning 'listen to the other side' - an essential principle in Indian law. The Supreme Court applied this in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where her passport was confiscated without a prior hearing.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a hearing should have been provided prior to the confiscation of the passport, reinforcing the principle of natural justice. A post-decision hearing was later granted, leading to the return of her passport.
• Post Decision-Hearing: Adopted when prior hearing is not feasible, ensuring a fair chance for all parties.
• Requirement of Reasons Disclosure: Courts mandate reasons behind administrative decisions to prevent arbitrariness and corruption.
• Legal Safeguards: Providing reasons deters arbitrary actions, protects victims, and upholds principles of natural justice.
• Principle of Reasonableness:  The courts commonly apply the concept of reasonableness in cases involving state action.
  In contract law, when states are involved in a contract, the courts differentiate these from contracts between private individuals.
  Private contracts deal with personal interests, while state contracts are about the public good and are expected to act reasonably rather than with discretion.
• Principle of Proportionality:  In administrative law, especially in service matters, courts often use the principle of proportionality.
  Judicial review provides protection to the aggrieved against punishments that are disproportionate and burdensome.
  For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that penalties in court martial cases should not be excessive compared to the offense committed.

(d) Basic Structure Doctrine

• The Supreme Court has expanded judicial review to cover constitutional amendments through the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution without explicit limitations.
• However, Article 13(2) restricts Parliament from making laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
• The 24th Amendment in 1971 granted Parliament extensive amending powers, including changes to fundamental rights provisions.
• The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973 addressed the issue of unlimited constitutional amendment powers.
• It introduced the doctrine of the basic structure, which prohibits amendments that harm essential features like secularism, democracy, and federalism.
• Judicial review, considered a basic feature of the Constitution, can overturn amendments that threaten fundamental rights of citizens.