Dispute Resolution and Court

The controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government, while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional

In Ghanshyam Das v. Anant Kumar,[6] while dealing with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the execution of decrees and orders, the Supreme Court had stated that the Civil Procedure Code contains elaborate and exhaustive provisions for dealing with the question of execution of decrees. More specifically, Section 51[8] of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates in general terms the various modes of execution of a decree, one amongst which is the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor. Procedure enumerates in general terms the various modes of execution of a decree, one amongst which is the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor.

A constitutional controversy of great significance vis-à-vis Art.356 was raised in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India..

The Civil Procedure Rules aim was to supply simply expressed rules in order to make the civil justice system accessible, fair and efficient . In order to assess the extent to which they have provided this it will require an assessment of the Overriding objective of the CPR, the use of pro- action protocols, and an analysis of judicial case management. Assessing these parts of the CPR will enable an evaluation of whether the CPR emphasis in preparing cases for settlement, instead of preparing cases for trial, may have caused a quicker and more effective mechanism for settling disputes.

Subsequent to having experienced the disgraceful period of aggregate oppression under the Indira Gandhi administration, the judiciary had been endeavouring, following the lifting of the Emergency, to rethink its part as an autonomous establishment. This was done through strides like developing the idea of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and suo moto intercession by and large including the minimized areas of the general

In the case of Hossainara khatun vs. State of Bihar , the Supreme Court held that “the right to free legal services is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held to be implicit in the guarantee of Article 21.” This was a case where it was found by justice P.N Bhagwati and justice D.A Desai that any under-trail prisoners in different jails in state of Bihar has been in jail for a longer period than the maximum term for which they would have been sentenced, if convicted and that there relation in jail was totally unjustified and in violation of the fundamental rights to personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. While disclosing shocking state of affairs and callousness of our legal and judicial system causing enormous misery and suffering to the poor and illiterate citizens resulting into totally unjustified deprivation of personal liberty, Justice Bhagwati made following

Dispute happened for those who are discontent, deceived, unfairness occurred, misunderstanding in communication or distortion of messages, and many forms of disagreement between parties. Not all cases regardless big or small should be brought to the courtroom to decide what Act should be applied on every case the court encountered. Not only would the court be burden with minor cases also it takes a very long time to solve other important case. (Bond, 1990. P630) therefore, there formed Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR for short as a procedure that is known as a secondary choice to settle disputes with or without the help of the law profession. ADR will be useful and solving the complications in family arguments, trading business dispute,

Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan , the Supreme Court, applied the unamended Article 31C, had inevitably accepted its revival. It would be appropriate here to put the words of the Supreme Court in word-to-word manner, “Let us proceed on the basis that after His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala and Minerva Mills Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Article 31C reads as “notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article

The traditional way of solving disputes is by going to court, a process known as litigation. Unfortunately over the years it has developed into a complex, expensive and inflexible system1. The incompetence with the civil justice system did not go unnoticed, resulting in the report led by Lord Woolf entitled 'Access to Justice 1996 '2. Lord Woolf himself described his proposals as the “new landscape of civil litigation in the 21st century”3. His report aimed to combat the problems of cost, complexity and delay, ultimately focusing on increasing access to justice. This report has also introduced Pre-Action Protocols4 and the new Civil Procedure Rules5 which widely encourage the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in solving disputes. This essay will focus on the advantages and disadvantages of ADR and the critical analysis of it in the civil justice system.

In the case I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu the court laid down a two-fold test: : (a) whether an amendment or a law is violative of any of the Fundamental Rights in Part III (b) if so, whether the violation

“The public prosecutor was not acting in a manner befitting the position held by him. He did not even request the trial court for holding the trial in-camera when a large number of witnesses were resiling from the statements made during investigation. The powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act (Judge’s power to put questions or order production) was not resorted to at all’. One of the witnesses was declared being of unsound mind but it was manipulated by the prosecution to drop him from being a witness, the apex court said.

PLACHIMADA IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT A. B. Background of the Case Principles in the

It is remarkable that, for about 60 years thereafter, the High Court managed to pull on with just 7 Judges, although with advancing years, the laws and the litigation both multiplied. There were no indications that this limited Bench was found inadequate to cope with the work, till about 1919. With the armistice at the termination of the First World War, there was sudden spurt of litigation in the City of Bombay. The number of Suites filed on Original Side, which during War had dwindled down to about 500 rose to about 7000, that the Prothonotary found it difficult to prepare daily boards for 3 Judges. It was only then that an additional Judge was demanded and was grudgingly granted . Bombay was lucky or unlucky in having at this crisis a Chief Justice of exceptional caliber, Sir Norman Mcleod, who instead of multiplying Judges preferred to massacre suits and appeals.

Topic – ‘Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India- A Watershed in ascertaining Propriety, Loss and Liability.’

The establishment of this Court was a welcome as it was the first British Court in India consisting of lawyers, its jurisdiction was so wise that it covered all kinds of legal wrongs and that since all British subject came under its jurisdiction it ensured rule of law.