High Court and Subordinate Judiciary

The state judiciary in India is anchored by a High Court at its apex, complemented by a structured hierarchy of subordinate courts—often simply called lower courts. These subordinate courts earn their designation through their direct subordination to the state High Court, functioning under its appellate and supervisory oversight at the district level and below. This layered arrangement ensures efficient justice delivery across local jurisdictions while maintaining hierarchical discipline.

Organization and Independence of Subordinate Courts

Part VI of the Indian Constitution, through Articles 233 to 237, establishes a comprehensive framework for organizing subordinate courts while safeguarding their independence from executive control. These provisions ensure that district-level judiciary operates with autonomy, free from undue interference, thereby strengthening the rule of law at the grassroots.

Appointment of District Judges

In every state, the Governor holds the authority to appoint, post, and promote District Judges, always in consultation with the respective High Court. This mechanism blends executive oversight with judicial input, safeguarding the independence and competence of the district judiciary.

Candidates aspiring to become District Judges must meet three essential qualifications. First, they cannot already be in the service of the Central Government or the State Government. Second, they must have practiced for at least seven years as an advocate or a pleader. Finally, the High Court must formally recommend their appointment. These criteria ensure that only experienced and independent legal professionals ascend to this pivotal role.

Appointments to the State Judicial Service (Other than District Judges)

In the structure of India's state judiciary, the Governor plays a pivotal role in recruiting personnel to the judicial service, excluding positions of district judges. Under this mechanism, appointments are made by the Governor after consulting both the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. This consultative process balances executive authority with inputs from bodies experienced in merit assessment and judicial standards, fostering competence and independence at the lower levels of the state's judicial hierarchy.

Control over Subordinate Courts

High Courts wield substantial administrative authority over district courts and other subordinate courts within a state. This control encompasses key personnel matters for members of the state's judicial service, particularly those holding posts below the rank of District Judge. Specifically, the High Court oversees their posting, promotion, and granting of leave, ensuring efficient functioning of the lower judiciary.

4. Interpretation

In this context, the term district judge carries a broad and inclusive meaning, extending beyond its literal sense to cover a variety of key judicial roles. It encompasses the judge of a city civil court; additional, joint, and assistant district judges; the chief judge of a small cause court; the chief presidency magistrate and additional chief presidency magistrate; as well as sessions judges, additional sessions judges, and assistant sessions judges.

Likewise, judicial service is defined precisely as a dedicated cadre composed solely of officers earmarked for appointment to the post of district judge, along with other civil judicial positions ranking below it. This definition ensures clarity in distinguishing specialized judicial hierarchies within the subordinate judiciary.

Application of the Provisions to Certain Magistrates

The Constitution empowers the Governor to extend the provisions governing persons in the state judicial service to specific categories of magistrates. By issuing a directive, the Governor may ensure that these rules apply to any class or classes of magistrates within the state, providing flexibility in aligning judicial administration across different levels.

Structure and Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judiciary

The organizational structure, jurisdiction, and nomenclature of India's subordinate judiciary are determined by individual states, leading to minor variations across the country. Broadly, however, the system follows a three-tier hierarchy of civil and criminal courts below the High Court: the District and Sessions Judge's Court at the top, followed by courts of Subordinate Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates, and finally, Munsiffs' Courts and Judicial Magistrates' Courts at the base.

At the district level, the District Judge serves as the highest judicial authority, wielding both original and appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. Functioning also as the Sessions Judge for criminal cases, the District Judge is addressed by these titles depending on the case type—District Judge for civil proceedings and Sessions Judge for criminal ones. Beyond adjudication, the District Judge exercises administrative control and supervisory powers over all subordinate courts in the district. Appeals against their orders or judgments go directly to the High Court. Notably, the Sessions Judge can impose any sentence, including life imprisonment or capital punishment, though death sentences require mandatory confirmation by the High Court, regardless of whether an appeal is filed.

Immediately below the District and Sessions Court lie the courts of Subordinate Judges on the civil side and Chief Judicial Magistrates on the criminal side. Subordinate Judges handle civil suits with unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, while Chief Judicial Magistrates adjudicate criminal cases punishable by imprisonment up to seven years.

The lowest tier consists of Munsiffs' Courts for civil matters and Judicial Magistrates' Courts for criminal ones. Munsiffs deal with civil cases involving small monetary values, exercising limited jurisdiction. Judicial Magistrates try criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment up to three years.

In metropolitan areas, specialized courts handle the workload: City Civil Courts (headed by Chief Judges) on the civil side and Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts on the criminal side. Additionally, several states and presidency towns maintain Small Causes Courts, which resolve low-value civil disputes through summary procedures. Their decisions are final, though the High Court retains revisionary powers.

At the grassroots level, some states empower local bodies such as Panchayat Courts—known variably as Nyaya Panchayats, Gram Kutcheries, Adalati Panchayats, or Panchayat Adalats—to try petty civil and criminal cases, ensuring accessible justice in rural areas.

The Constitution of India lays a strong foundation for accessible justice through Article 39A, which directs the state to provide free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of society, ensuring equal justice for all. This mandate is reinforced by Articles 14 and 22(1), which guarantee equality before the law and a legal system that offers equal opportunities. To give effect to these principles, Parliament enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which came into force on 9 November 1995. This legislation created a nationwide network to deliver free and competent legal services to the underprivileged on an equal-opportunity basis. At its helm is the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), constituted under the Act to oversee the implementation of legal aid programs, formulate policies, and establish guidelines for their effective delivery.

NALSA's structure cascades down to the grassroots level for comprehensive coverage. Every state has a State Legal Services Authority, while each High Court hosts a High Court Legal Services Committee. At the district and taluk levels, District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Committees operationalize NALSA's directives, providing free legal aid, conducting Lok Adalats for amicable dispute resolution, and promoting legal awareness. Complementing this is the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, which manages legal services specifically for cases before the Supreme Court.

NALSA designs policies, principles, and cost-effective schemes that State Legal Services Authorities implement across the country. These bodies perform three core functions on an ongoing basis: offering free and competent legal services to eligible individuals; organizing Lok Adalats to settle disputes through mutual consent; and conducting legal awareness camps, particularly in rural areas, to empower communities with knowledge of their rights.

Free legal services under the scheme are comprehensive, covering payment of court fees, process fees, and other incidental charges in legal proceedings; provision of lawyers to represent clients; supply of certified copies of orders and documents; and preparation of appeals, including paper books, printing, and translation of documents.

Eligibility for these services is broad and inclusive, extending to women and children; members of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST); industrial workmen; victims of mass disasters, violence, floods, droughts, earthquakes, or industrial accidents; persons with disabilities; individuals in custody; those whose annual income does not exceed ₹1 lakh (₹1.25 lakh for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee); and victims of human trafficking or forced labour (begar). This framework ensures that justice is not denied due to economic or social barriers, upholding the constitutional vision of equality.

Lok Adalats

Lok Adalats offer a distinctive forum for the amicable resolution of disputes, embodying India's commitment to accessible justice. They handle cases pending in regular courts as well as those at the pre-litigation stage—disputes that have not yet been formally filed. Through voluntary compromise, parties arrive at mutually agreeable settlements, fostering harmony without the adversarial rigors of traditional litigation.

Lok Adalat: Peoples Court and ADR

The Supreme Court of India has vividly described the institution of Lok Adalat as an age-old mechanism of dispute resolution rooted in ancient Indian traditions, one whose relevance endures even in contemporary times. Literally translating to "People’s Court," this system draws inspiration from Gandhian principles of justice and forms a key pillar of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In an era where Indian courts grapple with massive backlogs—often taking years to resolve even minor disputes through protracted, costly procedures—Lok Adalat emerges as a swift and affordable pathway to equitable outcomes.

What sets Lok Adalat apart is its ethos: proceedings yield no victors or vanquished, fostering reconciliation without lingering bitterness. Embraced nationwide as a viable, economical, efficient, and informal alternative to litigation, it empowers specially trained conciliators to address both pending court cases and fresh disputes. Through negotiation, persuasion, and a commonsense, humane approach, Lok Adalat delivers prompt, low-cost justice tailored to the common citizen, bypassing the rigors of formal adjudication.

The Statutory Evolution of Lok Adalats

The roots of Lok Adalats in post-independence India trace back to 1982, when the first such camp was organized in Gujarat. Its remarkable success in resolving disputes quickly and amicably sparked a nationwide movement. Initially operating as a voluntary, conciliatory forum without legal enforceability, Lok Adalats gained immense popularity, prompting calls for statutory recognition. This led to their formal empowerment under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which provided a robust legal framework for their organization, functioning, and awards.

Under the Act, Lok Adalats can be organized by the State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee. These bodies determine the timing, venues, jurisdiction, and areas as they deem appropriate. Typically, a Lok Adalat panel comprises a serving or retired judicial officer as chairperson, alongside a lawyer (advocate) and a social worker as members, ensuring a blend of legal expertise, advocacy, and grassroots perspective.

Lok Adalats hold jurisdiction over a wide array of disputes, enabling them to facilitate compromises or settlements in two key scenarios: cases already pending before any court, or matters that fall within a court's purview but have not yet been filed (pre-litigation stage). Common matters include matrimonial and family disputes, compoundable criminal offences, land acquisition, labour issues, workmen's compensation, bank recovery, pensions, housing board or slum clearance cases, housing finance, consumer grievances, electricity bills, telephone disputes, municipal matters like house tax, and cellular company complaints. However, they explicitly exclude non-compoundable offences under any law, preserving the sanctity of serious crimes.

Referral to a Lok Adalat is straightforward and flexible. For pending court cases, it occurs if both parties agree, one party applies to the court, or the court itself deems the matter suitable. Pre-litigation disputes can be directly referred by the organizing authority upon an application from any party, promoting early resolution.

Equipped with powers akin to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Lok Adalats can summon and examine witnesses on oath, compel document production, accept affidavits as evidence, requisition public records, and handle other prescribed matters. They enjoy autonomy in crafting their own procedures for dispute resolution. Moreover, proceedings before a Lok Adalat qualify as judicial proceedings under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the forum itself is treated as a civil court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lending them procedural authority and deterrence against interference.

The hallmark of a Lok Adalat award is its finality: it is deemed a decree of a civil court or an order of any other court, binding on all parties with no provision for appeal. This ensures swift, conclusive justice, embodying the institution's core ethos of accessible and harmonious dispute resolution.

Benefits of Lok Adalat

The Supreme Court has outlined several key advantages of Lok Adalat, making it an invaluable tool for dispute resolution. Foremost, it eliminates court fees entirely; if a fee has already been paid in a regular court, it is fully refunded upon settlement. Unlike traditional litigation, Lok Adalat offers remarkable procedural flexibility and swift resolution, bypassing the rigid requirements of laws like the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. Parties can engage directly with the presiding judicial officer through their counsel—a level of interaction impossible in conventional courts. Most crucially, the Lok Adalat award carries the full force of a civil court decree, is binding on all parties, and is final with no right of appeal, ensuring disputes conclude without prolonged delays.

These features render Lok Adalat a true boon for litigants, enabling them to resolve conflicts quickly, cost-free, and amicably under the Legal Services Authorities Act.

The Law Commission of India has similarly highlighted the broader merits of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, of which Lok Adalat is a cornerstone. ADR proves far less expensive than courtroom battles, consumes minimal time, and operates free from the technicalities that often bog down regular trials. Parties can openly discuss their differences without fear of prejudicial disclosure in court. Above all, it fosters a sense of mutual resolution—neither side truly "wins" or "loses," yet grievances are addressed, and relationships mended.

Permanent Lok Adalats for Public Utilities

Permanent Lok Adalats

A key innovation in India's alternative dispute resolution framework came through the 2002 amendment to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which paved the way for establishing Permanent Lok Adalats. Unlike traditional Lok Adalats, these permanent bodies focus exclusively on resolving disputes related to public utility services—such as electricity, water supply, and telecommunications—ensuring faster, more efficient settlements outside the regular court system.

Reasons for Establishing Permanent Lok Adalats

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, laid the foundation for delivering free and competent legal aid to society's weaker sections, ensuring that economic or other barriers did not deny citizens access to justice. A key feature of this Act was the promotion of Lok Adalats—innovative forums for alternative dispute resolution that encourage amicable settlements outside the formal court system. These bodies have proven remarkably effective in fostering conciliation and resolving disputes swiftly.

Yet, the existing Lok Adalat framework has a significant limitation: it hinges entirely on voluntary compromise between parties. If no settlement is reached, cases are simply returned to regular courts or parties are directed there, leading to avoidable delays in justice delivery. Empowering Lok Adalats to adjudicate disputes on their merits—even when parties fail to compromise—would address this bottleneck effectively.

This need becomes especially pressing for disputes involving public utility services, such as those with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) or Delhi Vidyut Board. These cases demand urgent resolution, often at the pre-litigation stage, to provide prompt relief to citizens and prevent minor grievances from clogging regular courts. By settling such matters early, the judicial workload would decrease substantially.

To achieve this, amendments to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, proposed the creation of Permanent Lok Adalats. These would introduce a compulsory pre-litigation mechanism specifically for public utility disputes, blending conciliation with decisive adjudication to streamline justice.

Permanent Lok Adalat: Jurisdiction and Procedure

The Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), introduced under the Legal Services Authorities Act, represents a innovative mechanism for swift dispute resolution in public utility matters. It is presided over by a Chairman who is or has been a District Judge, Additional District Judge, or held a higher judicial office, supported by two members with substantial experience in public utility services. The PLA exercises jurisdiction over disputes involving essential services such as transport of passengers or goods by air, road, or water; postal, telegraph, or telephone services; supply of power, light, or water; public sanitation; hospital or dispensary services; and insurance. Its pecuniary limit is set at up to ten lakh rupees, though the Central Government may raise this threshold as needed. Notably, the PLA lacks jurisdiction over any offence that is non-compoundable under law.

Parties can approach the PLA for settlement before initiating proceedings in any court, and once an application is filed, no party may seek recourse from a court on the same dispute. This preemptive access promotes early conciliation. If the PLA discerns potential for settlement, it formulates proposed terms and invites observations from the parties. Should they agree, the PLA issues an award embodying the settlement; if not, it adjudicates the matter on its merits.

Awards by the PLA are final and binding on all parties, decided by a majority of its members. This structure ensures efficient, enforceable resolutions, minimizing judicial backlog while prioritizing amicable outcomes in critical public services.

Family Courts Act, 1984

Enacted in 1984, the Family Courts Act represented a forward-thinking reform in India's judicial landscape. It established specialized Family Courts dedicated to fostering conciliation among disputing parties and ensuring the swift resolution of conflicts arising from marriage and family matters.

Establishment and Objectives of Family Courts

The push for dedicated Family Courts in India stemmed from widespread calls for a more humane approach to resolving domestic disputes. Women's associations, alongside various organizations and individuals, repeatedly advocated for specialized courts that prioritized conciliation and socially beneficial outcomes over rigid procedural rules and evidentiary formalities.

This sentiment found strong backing in the Law Commission's 59th Report (1974), which urged courts handling family matters to depart sharply from the adversarial style of ordinary civil litigation. It recommended proactive efforts toward settlement before trials began. In response, the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to introduce tailored procedures for family-related suits. Yet, these reforms saw limited adoption; courts largely continued treating family disputes like routine civil cases, perpetuating a confrontational dynamic.

Recognizing this gap, the need arose—in the public interest—for Family Courts to ensure swift resolutions. Their core objectives crystallized around four pillars: first, establishing specialized forums with the expertise to handle family matters efficiently, blending specialized knowledge with speedy disposal; second, embedding structured mechanisms for conciliation; third, offering affordable remedies accessible to all; and fourth, fostering a flexible, informal environment that eases the emotional strain of proceedings.

Salient Features of the **Family Courts Act, 1984

The Family Courts Act, 1984 revolutionized family dispute resolution in India by empowering State Governments, in consultation with High Courts, to establish dedicated Family Courts. To ensure widespread access, it mandates the creation of these courts in every city or town with a population exceeding one million. States also have the flexibility to set them up in other areas where necessary, tailoring the network to local needs.

These courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over a focused range of family matters, including matrimonial relief—such as nullity of marriage, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, or declarations on the validity of a marriage or an individual's matrimonial status. Their purview extends to disputes over spousal property, declarations of legitimacy, guardianship of persons or custody of minors, and maintenance claims by wives, children, or parents. This streamlined mandate allows Family Courts to specialize in the emotional and relational nuances of family law.

At the heart of the Act lies a commitment to amicable resolution: Family Courts must first strive for reconciliation or settlement between parties, conducting proceedings informally without the burden of rigid rules. To support this conciliatory approach, courts can enlist social welfare agencies, counsellors, medical experts, and welfare specialists, fostering a holistic environment for dispute resolution.

Access to legal representation is intentionally limited—parties have no automatic right to lawyers—to preserve the informal ethos, though the court may, in the interest of justice, summon a legal expert as amicus curiae. Evidence rules and procedures are deliberately simplified, enabling swift and effective handling of cases.

Finally, the Act provides for a single tier of appeal, which lies directly to the High Court, ensuring finality while upholding oversight.

Gram Nyayalayas

The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, marks a pivotal step toward grassroots justice in India by establishing Gram Nyayalayas—village-level courts designed to bring legal remedies directly to people's doorsteps. These courts address a fundamental challenge in the justice system: ensuring that no citizen is deprived of their right to seek redress due to social, economic, or other disabilities. In essence, the Act empowers rural communities with accessible, speedy adjudication, bridging the gap between remote populations and formal judiciary.

Reasons for Establishing Gram Nyayalayas

Access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged remains a persistent global challenge, despite numerous strategies worldwide. In India, this issue is enshrined in the Constitution's Article 39A, which mandates the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. It further requires free legal aid to prevent any citizen from being denied justice due to economic or other disabilities.

In recent years, the government has pursued several reforms to bolster the judicial system, including simplifying procedural laws and promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation, and Lok Adalats. Yet these efforts must be intensified to meet growing demands.

The Law Commission of India, in its 114th Report, advocated for Gram Nyayalayas to deliver speedy, inexpensive, and effective justice to ordinary people. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, draws directly from these recommendations, aiming to realize the long-cherished dream of doorstep justice for the rural poor. By establishing these courts in villages, the Act promises affordable and prompt resolution of disputes, empowering remote communities with accessible legal recourse.

Salient Features of the **Gram Nyayalayas Act

The Gram Nyayalayas Act establishes village-level courts to deliver swift and accessible justice, particularly in rural areas. These courts function as Judicial Magistrates of the first class, with their presiding officers—known as Nyayadhikaris—appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. Nyayadhikaris are strictly judicial officers, entitled to the same salary and powers as First Class Magistrates under High Courts. Each Gram Nyayalaya serves either a single intermediate-level Panchayat or a group of contiguous such Panchayats in a district; in States lacking intermediate Panchayats, it covers groups of contiguous village Panchayats.

Designed for mobility and outreach, the Gram Nyayalaya operates as both a criminal and civil court. Its permanent seat is at the headquarters of the intermediate Panchayat, but it regularly travels to villages to hear and resolve cases on-site, ensuring justice reaches remote communities.

The courts' jurisdiction is clearly defined: they adjudicate criminal cases, civil suits, claims, and disputes listed in the Act's First and Second Schedules. Both Central and State Governments can amend these Schedules within their legislative domains. In criminal trials, Gram Nyayalayas follow a summary procedure, while exercising civil court powers with modifications tailored by the Act. They are not bound by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but instead adhere to principles of natural justice and any rules framed by the High Court.

A key emphasis is on amicable resolution: Gram Nyayalayas prioritize conciliation, appointing dedicated conciliators to mediate between parties wherever possible. Judgments and orders are treated as decrees, executed through a summary process to minimize delays.

Appeals provide oversight without prolonged uncertainty. Criminal appeals go to the Court of Session, and civil appeals to the District Court, both to be decided within six months of filing. Additionally, accused persons in criminal cases may apply for plea bargaining, aligning with broader criminal justice reforms. This framework empowers Gram Nyayalayas to bridge the gap between formal courts and rural litigants, promoting equity and efficiency in India's grassroots judiciary.

Establishment and Funding of Gram Nyayalayas

The Central Government supports the establishment of Gram Nyayalayas by covering non-recurring expenses up to ₹18 lakh per unit. This assistance allocates ₹10 lakh specifically for court construction, ₹5 lakh for a vehicle, and ₹3 lakh for office equipment. With plans to set up over 5,000 such village courts across the country under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, the Centre has committed approximately ₹1,400 crore in aid to the concerned States and Union Territories.

Responsibility for establishing these courts rests with State Governments, who must consult their respective High Courts as mandated by the Act. This decentralized approach aims to extend justice to rural areas efficiently.

However, operationalizing Gram Nyayalayas has faced significant hurdles. Many States already operate regular courts at the taluka level, reducing the perceived need for these specialized forums. Additional challenges include reluctance from police officials and other state functionaries to engage their jurisdiction, lukewarm participation from the legal fraternity, scarcity of notaries and stamp vendors in remote areas, and overlaps with the authority of regular courts.

These issues gained prominence during the April 2013 Conference of Chief Justices of High Courts and Chief Ministers of States. The gathering resolved that State Governments and High Courts should assess the feasibility of establishing Gram Nyayalayas based on local conditions. The emphasis remains on prioritizing talukas lacking regular courts, ensuring targeted expansion where it can make the most impact.