By:- Advocate Pooja Deshmukh
B.Com, M.Com, L.L.B.
Advocate before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Lower Courts and Tribunals
I hope my last write up was interesting and informative enough for the readers. If any queries or points are to be considered, or any suggestive topics anybody interested in knowing about, kindly respond us in writing, commenting below the article and such views will be considered and will be dealt in the next write up. The next write up being dealt with is with regards to the Overview of our Courts which is going to be elaborated in parts with a in depth study. Being newly exposed to this profession, there has been many eye openers which have been helpful in knowing certain things in detail. For instance, “Court” being the primary institution for law professionals, and it bears many other sub-institutions. In depth study of the same can be expected by the readers in the upcoming writeup.
COURTS
THE MORAL ARC OF THE UNIVERSE IS LONG,
BUT IT BENDS TOWARDS JUSTICE
-MARTIN LUTHER KING.
INTRODUCTION:
FOR ONE TO PURSUE/ACHIEVE/ GET JUSTICE, ONE HAS TO APPROACH THE COURT OF LAW. The COURT is an institution, authorized by government for the general public facing any kind of problem or dispute or is being aggrieved by the acts of some other person are resolved or are taken care of. The COURT is where the aggrieved person’s grievance would be dealt with by the authorized persons, being the Judges who are appointed under the judiciary. The disputes being of a legal nature are to be dealt with by the Judges under some provisions of law. The interpretation of such law or act laid down is done by the Court of Law according to which the disputes are heard and disposed of.
Further A COURT is also defined as A body of people presided over by a judge, judges, or magistrate, and acting as a tribunal in civil criminal cases. Or can be further understood as the hall, chamber, or place where justice is administered. Court in general terms is any person or institution empowered by the Government to adjudicate legal disputes arisen between the people. The Court of law is the means for the common public to get the disputes resolved. The Court is also alternatively called as ‘The Bench.’
According to William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a court is constituted by a minimum of three parties: the actor or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it, and the judex or judicial power, which is to examine the truth of the fact, to determine the law arising upon that fact, and, if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain and by its officers to apply a legal remedy.
Different courts have been assigned different Jurisdictions under which the Courts are empowered to resolve the disputes falling under their assigned jurisdiction. The word Jurisdiction comes from juris and dictio (a speaking and pronouncing of the law). Jurisdiction is also defined as the official authority to make legal decisions and judgements over an individual or materialistic item within a territory. Jurisdiction means the extent of the authority of a Court to administer justice.
Jurisdiction of Courts are based on different factors and are of different kinds, being Civil, Criminal, Territorial, Pecuniary, Original, Appellate, Subject Matter, Exclusive, Concurrent, General, Special, Legal, Equitable, Domestic, Foreign and Expounding or expanding Jurisdiction. The litigating parties cannot confer upon any Court which does not possess jurisdiction of that particular dispute. Further elucidation of the above listed kinds of jurisdiction is as under.
In general course, if a litigant has to file a Dispute which involves breach of contract or commission of tort, such disputes are of civil nature, hence they fall under the Civil Jurisdiction. Further if a litigant alleges any such allegations which involves criminal conduct, whether grievous or not, would fall under the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction.
Whereas in Territorial jurisdiction of the Courts the Courts have been assigned with a territorial limit according to which the Courts are supposed to entertain cases filed by the litigants. The incident (Crime) occurred, or the property under dispute is located in a particular area, these factors are to be taken into consideration before approaching the Courts. For eg. The District Courts have jurisdiction over the territory under that district and not beyond it. Also, the Judges have been assigned/ allotted with different areas falling under that particular district, and beyond which they have no powers to act upon.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Courts is with regards to a monetary limit set for the Courts to resolve the disputes without exceeding the pecuniary limit for that particular Court. For eg. Small Causes Courts do not have jurisdiction to look into a suit in which the amount exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, where as a City Civil Court cannot exercise its powers if the suit is valued to more than Rs. 1 Crore, if the suit value is above one crore then the High Courts have the jurisdiction to try the suits, which also becomes the Original Jurisdiction.
Original Jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred upon a court at first instance. Whereas Appellate Jurisdiction is where the jurisdiction is conferred upon the Higher courts which are ideally coming up from the subordinate courts after the judgement or final order has been passed. Thus, appeals from district courts are filed before the High Court, similarly, after final order from any magistrate court, can be further challenged by the litigants before the Sessions Courts, whereby the Sessions Court here exercising its appellate jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction with regards to the Subject matter of the suit can be understood, as there are certain limitations for the courts while trying the suit. For instance, Writ Petitions can only be tried by the High Courts or the Supreme Court, subordinate courts like District and other courts are not empowered to try writ petitions. Similarly, Subject matter of the small causes court is limited to their extent and they specific performances suits cannot be tried by the small causes court.
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Courts can be understood as the Courts being empowered with the exclusive jurisdiction of a particular type or a Subject matter, and such type of matters cannot be filed before any other courts. For instance, Debt recovery tribunals, Company Law Tribunal, Consumer Courts. Whereas Concurrent jurisdiction is where one or more Courts can exercise its jurisdiction over one particular type or subject matter.
General Jurisdiction of courts is where the Courts can exercise its jurisdiction towards all types of cases, like For instance, a district court can exercise its jurisdiction towards all types of matters of civil nature, criminal nature, family matters which fall under its territorial jurisdiction. Whereas Special jurisdiction of courts is confined to a specific area, like Courts for Small Causes.
Legal and Equitable type of jurisdiction has been an old practice wherein legal jurisdiction is exercised when the Courts decide on the basis of existing legislative acts and principles while the Equitable Jurisdiction which first originated in the Common Law Courts of England now finds its application in the Indian Courts as well. Whenever there is absence of requisite legislative acts, Courts decide a matter on the general principles of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience.
Domestic jurisdiction and foreign jurisdiction as the name clarifies is the exercise of jurisdiction within local domains and foreign domains respectively.
Expounding and Expanding jurisdiction limits the jurisdiction of court that to what extent courts can elaborate and utilize the extended jurisdictions.
There are different Courts of law which are categorized into 2 sets judicial and quasi-judicial. Ordinary Courts of law such as all District Courts, which includes all Magistrate Courts, Sessions Court, Civil Courts, Family Courts
CONCLUSION:
A Superb quote by a superb personality goes like this, “There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of Conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” – Mahatma Gandhi
In order to conclude, there are certain points to be taken into consideration, which are closely related to the current topic under discussion, and this would also be answering certain queries raised upon the previous topic discussed by the author based on the Lawyer’s Dress Code. Considering appearance of any Advocate before any judicial or quasi-judicial authority, an Advocate or Lawyer, who is a Proxy Advocate or an Advocate on Record, representing the litigant is ought to follow the dress code as prescribed under section 49 (1) gg of The Advocates Act, 1961 and also the Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India rules laid down state the way in which an Advocates should appear in the Supreme Court, High Court, Subordinate Court, Tribunals or Authorities, and such attire should be sober and dignified. So here the Tribunals and Authorities come under quasi-judicial authorities established to hear upon the disputes arisen between the public. Hence being an Advocate, one should be dressed in the prescribed manner by the Bar Council of India, one being an Advocate belonging to any part of the Independent India and are bound to follow it, it reflects dignity and respect towards our profession.
Also, for more elucidation and a comparative study between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Courts in my next article. Stay Tuned…
Advocate In Action 