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 court.

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 CrPC.

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.[1]

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.[2]

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.[3]

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.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

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 disputes.

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 arbitration centers.[9]

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) [10]:

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)[11]: 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) [12]:

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)[13]:

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.

Conclusion
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.

References:

1. Court Managers in the Indian judiciary by Arunav Kaul - https://www.barandbench.com/columns/court-managers-in-the-indian-judiciary
2. 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
3. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
4. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
6. The Contempt of Courts ACT, 1971
7. The Advocates Act, 1961
8. The Limitation Act. 1963
9. https://www.dispute-resolution hamburg.com/information/arbitration
10. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/the-tribunal-system-in-india-3750
11. 1974 AIR 710, 1974 SCR (2) 282
12. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (30.10.1972 - SC): MANU/SC/0038/1972
13. Contempt Petition (crl.) 10 of 2001
14. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) (24.03.2015 - SC): MANU/SC/0329/2015

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Rohit Chandock

Authentication No: FB305431520222-23-0223