Despite being essential parts of their respective democratic systems, the judiciaries of the US and India differ greatly in terms of their composition, roles, and areas of authority. Comprehending these differences is essential to understanding the unique legal environments in which these courts function.
Indian Judiciary and American Judiciary differ in parameters like judicial system, appellate jurisdiction, advisory jurisdiction, discretion, judicial review, and more. In this blog post, we have discussed the topic "Indian Judiciary vs. US Judiciary" in detail including the historical evolution, structure, hierarchy, judicial review, etc.
| Parameter | Indian | American |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial System | The GoI Act of 1935 served as the model for this one, integrated judicial system. | The federal judiciary is responsible for upholding federal laws, whereas state judiciaries are responsible for upholding state laws. |
| Original Jurisdiction | Confined to federal cases. | Includes instances involving ambassadors, naval troops, marine operations, and other topics in addition to federal proceedings. |
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Civil + Constitutional + Criminal cases. | Constitutional cases only. |
| Advisory Jurisdiction | It has advisory jurisdiction. | It lacks in advisory jurisdiction. |
| Discretion | Give someone specific permission to appeal a court or tribunal's decision in any situation (except from military cases). | No such plenary power. |
| Judicial Review | Scope is limited. | The scope is very wide. |
| Jurisdiction and Powers | Parliament has the authority to expand it. | Restricted to what the Constitution grants. |
| Defends Rights of the Citizen | As per the ‘procedure established by law’. | Defends Citizens Rights with the help of ‘due process of law’. |
Indian judiciary vs. US judiciary: Historical Evolution
In this section, we have discussed the roots of Indian and US judiciary and how it evolved over the passage of time.
The Roots of Indian Judiciary
India's political, cultural, and historical changes are reflected in the development of the judiciary. The judiciary developed during the British colonial era, which brought codified laws and contemporary court architecture, but it was rooted in the old Vedic judicial systems of the time, when Dharma served as the foundation for justice. After the Indian Constitution was ratified, the judiciary emerged as a key component of democracy, protecting rights, upholding the rule of law, and guaranteeing justice. Although its operations have been molded by seminal rulings and legislative changes, the court nonetheless faces contemporary difficulties including backlogs and resource shortages.
Ancient India: The Roots of Justice
The ancient writings known as the Vedas are where India's court got its start. Deeply ingrained in these books was the idea of Dharma, which is roughly translated as "law" or "righteousness." The first codifications of Hindu law were found in the Dharma Sutras, a collection of laws and ceremonies. These writings laid the foundation for what would eventually develop into a more formal legal system by outlining the obligations of people at different phases of life as well as the rights and obligations of rulers.
The Artha Sastra of Kautilya, which dates to around 300 B.C., is among the oldest texts that provide insight on governance and law. This ancient book offers insight into the early administration of justice by exploring Vyavahara (transactions between parties) and Vivada (disputation), especially in its third chapter.
The British Era: The Birth of Modern Judiciary
An important turning event in the history of the judiciary was the onset of British rule in India. The establishment of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Calcutta was made possible by the King of England's enactment of the Regulating Act of 1773. The foundation for India's current legal system was laid by this court, which was founded in 1774 and had complete jurisdiction to hear and decide cases and complaints.
With the founding of the Supreme Courts in Madras (1800) and Bombay (1823), the development proceeded. By dissolving the previous Supreme Courts and Sadar Adalats and establishing High Courts in many regions, the India High Courts Act of 1861 considerably reorganized the judiciary. Before the Federal Court of India was established by the Government of India Act, 1935, these High Courts were the nation's highest court.
Post-Independence: The Supreme Court of India
The judicial system was substantially improved with India's independence in 1947 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1950. On January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court of India convened for the first time. The Supreme Court was given the powers of judicial review, which allowed it to overturn any legislative or executive measures that violated the Constitution because it was the nation's highest court.
Modern India has been significantly shaped by the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and defending basic rights. The Court today meets 190 days a year to handle the legal concerns of a large and diversified country, carrying the weighty burden of enforcing justice, despite its modest origins when it only convened 28 days a year.
History of American Judiciary
The Supreme Court and other courts make up the US federal judiciary, which was created by the Constitution and described in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court is the ultimate judge of constitutional law. A closer look into the history is provided here:
Establishment and Early Years:
- Constitutional Basis:
The Supreme Court and the judicial branch were founded under Article III of the Constitution, but Congress was given control over the specifics of the court system.
- Judiciary Act of 1789:
The Judiciary Act, which established the Supreme Court and lesser courts and described the structure of the federal judiciary, was approved by the First Congress in 1789.
- Supreme Court's First Meeting:
In February 1790, the Supreme Court convened for the first time in New York City.
- Initial Structure:
A three-part judiciary was first formed by the Judiciary Act of 1789: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court (which included a Chief Justice and five associate justices).
- Circuit Riding:
Appellate circuit courts were established in 1891 as a result of the Supreme Court's original requirement that justices "ride the circuit," or travel to rule over matters in the circuit courts. This practice proved difficult.
Key Developments and Transformations:
- Judicial Review:
The Supreme Court created the concept of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which gave it the authority to rule that legislation were unconstitutional even though it was not expressly included in the Constitution.
- Expansion of the Court:
Although the number of justices on the Supreme Court has changed throughout time, since 1869, it has largely stayed at nine.
- Appellate Circuit Courts:
To manage increasing caseloads and lessen the strain on Supreme Court judges, Congress established a distinct tier of appellate courts in 1891, referred to as the U.S. circuit courts of appeals.
- Administrative Authority:
Since Congress gave the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to create rules of federal procedure and perform other administrative duties, it has had limited administrative control over the federal courts.
Analyzing the Judicial Systems of U.S., U.K., and India
It's important to note that this comparison highlights the value and efficacy of justice in addition to efficiency in the strict sense.
Indian Judicial System
With aspects of common law, equitable law, civil law, and customary and religious rules, India has a hybrid legal system. A unified, integrated judicial system for the entire country is established under the Indian Constitution. State-level High Courts and a few other Subordinate Courts are ranked below the Supreme Court of India, which is the nation's highest court. The Indian judiciary is governed and controlled by the Supreme Court. All of India's courts work together to create a single judicial system.
The Indian Constitution is a written document that has been put into effect. The Indian Supreme Court has been granted the authority to interpret the Constitution. As such, it serves as the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution's provisions. The Indian Constitution is the ultimate law of the nation. The people's fundamental rights are also protected by the Supreme Court. It uses the authority of Judicial Review to carry out this responsibility. Any legislation that is deemed to be unlawful may be rejected by the Supreme Court, which has the authority to decide whether all laws are constitutional.
The Indian court protects the people's fundamental rights. In addition, the right to constitutional remedies gives citizens the ability to have their rights upheld by the courts in the event that they are violated. For this reason, writs may be issued by the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
U.S.A. Judicial Systems
The jury system is one distinctive aspect of the American legal system. Every state in the union has its own legal system, bar associations, and laws. These state laws and rulings are often superseded by federal law and court rulings in the United States. However, the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves the states any authority not specifically provided to the federal government. Almost all of these cases are retained for state courts in the United States.
In the United States, a three-court hierarchy governs more serious crimes and civil proceedings. At the federal level in the United States, criminal and civil proceedings are not handled by different courts. Cases start in subordinate courts, go to appeals courts, and, if required, end up before a single supreme court.
Appointment and Tenure of Judges: A Comparative Overview
Indian judges are selected by the President after conferring with the Chief Justice of India, in contrast to US federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, who are appointed for life by the President and ratified by the Senate. Until they reach the obligatory retirement age of 65 for the Supreme Court or 62 for the High Court, they continue to serve in their current positions.
Appointment of Judges in India
The following guidelines govern the appointment of Supreme Court judges in accordance with the Indian Constitution.
- The President appoints all Supreme Court judges, who serve until they reach the age of 65.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the President is not required to confer with the Chief Justice. However, the Court ruled that proper consultation is necessary.
- The Governor of the State is also contacted when it comes to High Court judges, and the Chief Justice of the High Court is consulted when it comes to judges other than the Chief Justice.
Tenure:
- The Supreme Court and High Court judges remain in office until they are 65 or 62, respectively.
- Only through a difficult impeachment procedure for shown misconduct or incompetence can they be removed.
Appointment of Judges in United States
These are the few guidelines for selecting judges in the United States.
- The President of the United States appoints federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court.
- The Senate must ratify these nominations.
Tenure:
- Except in extremely rare situations, federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed for life and serve "during good behavior."
- The purpose of this lifelong tenure is to guarantee judicial independence.
No Mandatory Retirement Age:
- In the US, federal judges are not required to retire at a certain age.
- Judges may remain in office until they pass away, step down, or are impeached.
Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Two Legal Giants
With their distinct histories, structures, and modes of operation, the judiciaries of the United States and India are among the most significant legal systems globally. Despite having democratic roots and a shared commitment to justice, liberty, and equality, they differ significantly in how they view the judiciary's function and judicial procedures.
The rich historical and cultural heritage of the nation has a significant impact on the Indian judiciary, which has a single, integrated structure and is always changing to meet the demands of contemporary government. The U.S. judiciary, on the other hand, has more discretionary authority in areas like judicial review and constitutional interpretation and functions within a dual system of courts that mirrors the nation's federal structure.
The "procedure established by law" serves as a guiding principle for the Indian judiciary, whereas the U.S. system adopts the more expansive idea of "due process of law." The glaring disparities in how each system defends and enforces the law are demonstrated by the U.S.'s lack of advisory jurisdiction and wider reach of judicial review. These differences are further highlighted by the appointment and tenure systems, where judges in the United States serve for life, guaranteeing judicial independence but posing their own set of difficulties, whereas judges in India have a specified retirement age.
Notwithstanding these distinctions, both systems are dedicated to protecting individuals' rights, maintaining responsibility, and offering channels for legal recourse. Knowing the advantages and disadvantages of each legal system not only improves our comprehension of how justice is administered internationally, but it also provides important insights for improving the efficiency and equity of judicial procedures everywhere.
We may close the gap between these two titans and promote a better comprehension of how the law functions in various sociopolitical and cultural circumstances by acknowledging the unique characteristics of the Indian and American judiciaries. This comparative study emphasizes how crucial it is to modify legal systems to meet their own requirements while working toward the same objective—justice for everyone.