The Indian judiciary is an independent and impartial system that is tasked
with resolving disputes and delivering justice to the people. The Indian court
system is comprised of various levels of courts, ranging from the Supreme Court
at the top to the local level courts at the bottom. Each level of the court
system has different responsibilities, powers & jurisdiction, and operates under
different laws and procedures.
The management of the court system in India is carried out by a number of
different practitioners, including judges, court staff, lawyers, and litigants.
Each of these persons plays a critical role in ensuring the efficient and
effective functioning of the court system. Judges are responsible for overseeing
the administration of justice in the courts. They are the primary
decision-makers in cases and are responsible for interpreting the law for
rendering verdicts. Judges are appointed by the President of India on the
recommendation of the Chief Justice of India. They are appointed for a term of
five years and can be re-appointed for an additional term of five years.
Court staff plays an important role in the functioning of the court system. They
are responsible for maintaining court records, managing court dockets and
ensuring that court proceedings run smoothly. Court staff are appointed by the
government and are responsible for carrying out the administrative tasks of the
Lawyers play a crucial role in the Indian court system. They represent litigants
in court and provide legal advice and guidance on various legal matters. Lawyers
must be registered with the Bar Council of India and must adhere to the ethical
standards set by the council.
Litigants are the individuals who bring their cases to the court system. They
may be individuals, corporations, or government entities, and they may bring
civil or criminal cases to the court. Litigants have the right to a fair and
impartial hearing, and they must follow the procedures set out by the CPC and
The Indian court system operates under a number of different practices and
procedures, including the filing of cases, the hearing of cases, and the
rendering of verdicts. When a case is filed in the court, it is assigned to a
judge, and a hearing date is set. During the hearing, both sides present their
arguments, and the judge renders a verdict based on the evidence and the law. It
includes enforcing court orders and imposing fines or other penalties where
necessary. In addition, the court system is responsible for ensuring that the
rights of all parties are protected during the course of a case.
Nature and Role of court management
The nature and role of court management are integral to the efficient and
effective functioning of the court system. Court management refers to the
administration and organization of the court system, including the management of
court resources, the coordination of court processes, and the provision of
support services to the judiciary and the public.
The role of court management is to ensure that the court system operates
efficiently and effectively, and that justice is delivered in a fair and timely
manner. This involves a number of key tasks, including the management of court
resources, the coordination of court processes, and the provision of support
services to the judiciary and the public.
One of the primary responsibilities of court management is the management of
court resources. This includes managing the budget and financial resources of
the court system, as well as the allocation of personnel and other resources.
Court management is responsible for ensuring that the court system has the
resources it needs to operate efficiently and effectively, including sufficient
staff, equipment, and facilities.
Another important role of court management is the coordination of court
processes. This involves ensuring that court procedures are followed and that
court decisions are implemented in a timely and efficient manner. Court
management is responsible for ensuring that court processes are carried out in
accordance with the law and that the rights of all parties are protected.
In addition to these core responsibilities, court management also plays a key
role in providing support services to the judiciary and the public. This
includes the provision of administrative support, such as the management of
court records and the coordination of court dockets. It also includes the
provision of educational and training programs for court staff and the public,
as well as the development of policies and procedures to ensure the effective
and efficient operation of the court system.
One of the key challenges facing court management is the need to balance the
competing demands of efficiency, access, and fairness. Court management must
ensure that the court system operates efficiently, while at the same time
ensuring that the rights of all parties are protected and that justice is
delivered in a fair and impartial manner.
Another challenge facing court management is the need to keep pace with
technological advancements and changing societal needs. Court management must
ensure that the court system is equipped to handle the increasing demands of a
complex and rapidly changing society, including the use of technology to improve
access to justice and the administration of justice.
Policies and procedures framed for managing courts in India
The Indian court system plays a crucial role in the administration of justice
and the maintenance of law & order in the country. To ensure that the courts
function efficiently and effectively, several policies and procedures have been
formed to manage the court system in India.
The Indian Constitution provides for an independent and impartial judiciary,
which is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and resolving disputes
between individuals, organizations, and the government. To ensure that the
judiciary remains independent and impartial, several policies and procedures
have been put in place to manage the court system in India.
One of the key policies formed for the management of courts in India is the
National Policy and Action Plan for strengthening the infrastructure of the
judiciary. This policy aims to provide adequate infrastructure, including
physical infrastructure such as court buildings and IT infrastructure, to enable
the courts to function efficiently and effectively.
Another important policy that has been formed to manage the courts in India is
the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) policy. This policy provides for
the use of technology to improve the functioning of the courts, including the
use of computerized systems for case management, record-keeping, and the
dissemination of information to the public.
In addition to these policies, several procedures have been put in place to
manage the court system in India. These procedures include the filing of cases,
the hearing of cases, and the disposal of cases. The filing of cases is done
through the submission of a petition or complaint to the court, which is then
assigned to a judge for hearing.
The hearing of cases is conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures
laid down by the courts, including the presentation of evidence, examination of
witnesses and the submission of arguments by the parties involved. The disposal
of cases is done through the issuance of a judgment or order by the court, which
is then enforced by the relevant authorities.
Parliamentary laws framed for proper management of courts in India
The Indian legal system is built on the foundation of various laws and
regulations that are designed to ensure the proper functioning of the courts and
the administration of justice. The Indian Constitution provides for an
independent and impartial judiciary, which is responsible for interpreting the
Constitution and resolving disputes between individuals, organizations, and the
government. To ensure that the judiciary remains independent and impartial,
several laws have been formed to manage the court system in India.
One of the key laws that govern the management of courts in India is the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC). The CPC lays down the rules and procedures for the
filing, hearing, and disposal of civil cases in the country. It also provides
for the appointment of judges, the formation of courts, and the maintenance of
records and registers.
Another important law that governs the management of courts in India is the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The CrPC lays down the rules and procedures for
the filing, hearing, and disposal of criminal cases in the country. It also
provides for the arrest and detention of accused persons, the examination of
witnesses and the production of evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act is another key law that governs the management of courts
in India. The Evidence Act lays down the rules for the admission of evidence in
court and the evaluation of evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of
accused persons. The Act provides for the examination of witnesses, the
production of documentary evidence, and the use of expert evidence.
The Contempt of Courts Act is also an important law that governs the management
of courts in India. The Contempt of Courts Act provides for the punishment of
persons who interfere with the administration of justice or who scandalize the
courts. The Act helps to maintain the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary and to ensure that justice is dispensed without fear or favour.
The Advocates Act is a landmark piece of legislation in India that governs the
regulation and recognition of the legal profession in the country. It provides
for the establishment of the Bar Council of India, which is the regulatory body
responsible for overseeing the legal profession and ensuring that standards are
maintained. The Act defines an advocate as a person entitled to practice law in
any court or tribunal in India and provides for their enrolment on the rolls of
the Bar Council of India or a State Bar Council. It lays down the qualifications
required for enrolment and sets out the conditions under which an advocate may
be disbarred or suspended from practice.
The Limitation Act is a piece of legislation in India that lays down the time
limits within which legal proceedings must be instituted. The act applies to
both civil and criminal proceedings and provides a uniform statute of
limitations for the entire country.
In addition to these laws, several other regulations have been formed to govern
the management of courts in India. These regulations include the High Court
Rules, the District Court Rules, and the Supreme Court Rules. These regulations
provide for the filing of cases, the hearing of cases, and the disposal of
cases, and help to ensure that the courts function efficiently and effectively.
Role of tribunals and arbitration centers in the management of courts
The Indian judicial system is one of the largest and most complex in the world,
with a vast number of cases being filed each year. The increasing backlog of
cases and the length of time it takes for cases to be heard and resolved has
become a major challenge for the Indian courts. To address this problem,
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have been introduced, including
tribunals and arbitration centers, which play an important role in the
management of courts in India.
Tribunals are specialized forums that are established to hear and decide
specific types of cases. They provide a more informal and efficient way to
resolve disputes and are often staffed by experts in the relevant field. For
example, the National Green Tribunal is a specialized tribunal that deals with
environmental disputes, while the Labour Tribunals deal with labour disputes
between employers and employees. The advantage of tribunals is that they are
less formal than the formal court system and they provide quick solutions to
Arbitration centers, on the other hand, provide a forum for the resolution of
disputes through the use of an impartial third party known as an arbitrator. The
arbitrator hears evidence from both sides and makes a binding decision on the
dispute. The decisions of arbitration centers are generally considered to be
final and binding, and they can be enforced through the court system if
necessary. The advantage of arbitration is that it is a faster and more
cost-effective way to resolve disputes, as compared to the formal court system.
Both tribunals and arbitration centers play a crucial role in the management of
courts in India by providing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that can
help to reduce the burden on the formal court system and provide quicker and
less formal solutions to disputes. They are often used in cases where the
parties agree to use alternative dispute resolution methods, but they can also
be used in cases where the parties are ordered to use these methods by a court.
In addition, tribunals and arbitration centers provide greater access to justice
for those who might otherwise be unable to afford the time and expense of the
formal court system. They also provide an opportunity for individuals and
organizations to have their disputes resolved by experts in the relevant field,
which can lead to more accurate and just outcomes.
The use of tribunals and arbitration centers in India is growing and this trend
is likely to continue in the future. However, there are also some challenges
associated with the use of these alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. For
example, there may be concerns about the impartiality of the arbitrators and
there may be issues with the enforcement of the decisions of tribunals and
Judicial Pronouncement in management of courts
There have been several landmark decisions in the area of contempt of court in
India that have helped to clarify the definition of contempt and the procedures
for punishing individuals who interfere with the administration of justice. Some
of the most notable landmark decisions include:
Baradakanta Mishra vs. the Registrar of Orissa High Court (1973) :
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that contempt of court
proceedings should be initiated only if there is a clear case of contempt, and
that the right to freedom of speech and expression must be balanced against the
need to maintain the authority of the courts.
Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India (1973): In this case, the Supreme
Court held that the publication of matter that is intended to interfere with the
administration of justice or to lower the authority of the courts constitutes
contempt of court.
Arundhati Roy vs. D. D. Basu (2002) :
In this case, the Supreme Court held that comments made by a person in
public speeches or writings that scandalize or tend to scandalize the courts can
be considered contempt of court, even if they do not directly interfere with the
administration of justice.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015):
In this case, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, which provided for the punishment of
individuals for sending "offensive" messages through the internet. The Court
held that the provision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression
and was therefore unconstitutional.
These landmark decisions have helped to clarify the definition of contempt of
court in India and the procedures for punishing individuals who interfere with
the administration of justice. They have also helped to strike a balance between
the right to freedom of speech and expression and the need to maintain the
authority of the courts.
In conclusion, the Indian court system plays a critical role in the
administration of justice in India. It is responsible for resolving disputes,
delivering justice, and enforcing court orders. The court system is comprised of
various levels of courts, each of which operates under different laws and
procedures. The management and practices of the court system are governed by
various acts and regulations, and it is the responsibility of various actors,
including judges, court staff, lawyers, and litigants, to ensure its efficient
and effective functioning.
- Court Managers in the Indian judiciary by Arunav Kaul -
- National policy and action plan for implementation of information &
communication technology in the Indian judiciary prepared by e-committee
Supreme Court of India New Delhi on 1st august, 2005
- The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- The Contempt of Courts ACT, 1971
- The Advocates Act, 1961
- The Limitation Act. 1963
- https://www.dispute-resolution hamburg.com/information/arbitration
- 1974 AIR 710, 1974 SCR (2) 282
- Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
(30.10.1972 - SC): MANU/SC/0038/1972
- Contempt Petition (crl.) 10 of 2001
- Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) (24.03.2015 - SC):
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Rohit Chandock
Authentication No: FB305431520222-23-0223