Skip to main content

The Union Judiciary

 The Union Judiciary


Introduction

The Judiciary is the third branch of the Union

Government. While the Legislative branch makes laws

and the Executive carries them out, it is the job of the

Judiciary to interpret or explain what these laws mean and

punish the law breakers.

A court is a government institution that settles legal

disputes and give justice. These disputes or quarrels may

involve individuals, organizations, and governments.

Court also decide the guilt of persons accused of crimes

and punish the guilty.

All courts are presided over by judges. The word Court

may refer to a judge, officers of the court or also the place

where legal disputes are settled.

Some court rulings and decisions affect only the person

involved in the case. Often the decisions of the court deal

with global issues like Fundamental Rights and racial

discrimination. In such cases, the court’s decisions can

have far-reaching consequences on the government. This,

courts serve as a powerful means of social and political

change and act as the watch dog of the constitution.


The supreme court is the major body of the Judicial

branch.

On 28 January, 1950, the Supreme Court of India was

inaugurated in the Court House, New Delhi. The Hon’ble

Shri Harilal J. Kania, Chief Justice of India presides over

the impressive gathering and deliver the inaugural

address.

The Supreme Court has been the crowning piece of our

constitutional edifice. It emerged as the apex of an

integrated judicial system, a powerful instrument for

protecting and unifying the law all over the country.


Salient features of the Union Judiciary


1. Qualifications of a Judge

Besides being a citizen of India every judge must

have any of the following qualification, he must have

 been a judge of one or more high courts for at

least five years,

 practiced as an advocate of High Court for at

least 10 years,

 been a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the

president.


2. Appointment of a Judge

The President of India appoints the Chief Justice of

India after consulting each of the judges of supreme

court and of the high courts as he may deem

necessary.


3. Independence of the Supreme Court judges

 In a democracy it is essential that the Judiciary is

impartial and independent of the Executive. The

constitution has provided the following

measures. Although the President appoints the

judges he must consult the Chief Justice when

appointing the other judges. In this way the

appointment is removed from the realms of pure

politics.

 No judges can be removed from the office except

by an order of the President and on the ground of

“proved misbehavior” or “incapacity”.


Each house of the Parliament has to present and address

to the President for such removal. It should be supported

by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members

of that House present and voting.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more