17. Social Diversity and Judiciary in India · · 2016-01-27Each sub-continent has its own belief...

ThispaperwaspresentedfortheInternationalConferenceonGrossNationalHappinessonGNH,held inParo,Bhutanfrom4-6November2015

SocialDiversityandJudiciaryinIndia:AComparativeStudywithBhutan

VibhudiVenkateshwarlu1

Abstract:

Keywords: Appointments, Judges, Influential factors, Law and Society, Religious values,

andSocialdiversity

There aremany sources forwellbeing in a given society including culture, beliefs

values, practices off course religion, inmodern times executive, legislation and judiciary

alsohavinggreatroletoprotecthappinessinthesociety,buttheseinstitutionsultimately

depending on the religion, culture, belief, tradition and practices of particular society.

Judiciaryisconsideredassacredinstitutionhavinghonorableplace,itisdirecting,guiding

remaining institutions forwellbeing of society, therefore, there is a need to select good,

quality,andefficientjudgeshavingallkindofsocial,cultural,includingsubjectknowledge

aboutaparticularsociety.

ThereisnouniformhistoryforIndia,infactIndiaisanewword.Itwascalledwith

variousnames;thereweresmallkingdoms,therewerediversecultures,traditions,values,

beliefsandpracticesaccordingtotheirrequirements.Historyispredominantlyinfluenced

bythepolitical&religioussources.Thedominantreligioussourceanddominantpolitical

practicebecomepopular inaparticularareaandgetprotectionby thekingsorstatesor

governmentswhichcanbenoticedfromHarappan,Sindhtimestopresentday.Thesociety

isregulatingbyvarioussourcesoflaws,accordingtoAustinlawiscommandofsovereign

backed by sanction, according to him there are two kinds of source of laws which are

regulatethesociety,oneisdivinelawsecondishumanlaw,whichmeansdivinecommand

andhumancommand.

1 Research Scholar, Department of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana State, India


Law is a command; it may be express or implied, written or unwritten, which

controls behavior of human beings. There are various sources for law through which

behavior of human beings is controlled, regulated and prevented like religion, culture,

traditions, values, beliefs and practices. In Indian sub-continent, there were diverse

religions,cultures,traditions,values,beliefsandpractices,andalsodiverselanguages,food

cultures, dress cultures.Within the religion, therewere different sects, castes and class.

Eachsub-continenthasitsownbeliefsystem,cultures,traditionsandpracticeswhichare

differentfromoneanother,forexampleBhutanisacountryhavingitsownreligiousvalues,

cultures,beliefs,practices,accordingtotheirbeliefcuttingoftree,huntingandtheftisasin

andtheirbeliefsmakeanationaspeacefulandhappiness.

The philosophy of religion is to ensure equality, liberty, justice, fraternity to its

followers but yet at the same time the same religion is responsible for the corruption,

inequality, suppression, injustice, inhumanity in the particular society. In India, the

dominant religion philosophically led to corruption, inequality, suppression, injustice,

inhumanity and it has become impossible for it to achieve equality, liberty, justice and

fraternity.Here, every organ or institutionpromotes corruption, inequality, suppression,

injustice,inhumanityinthesociety.

The judiciary ispartof thesociety.All thereligious,cultural, traditionalbeliefs,practices

andvaluesreflectonthejudiciaryalso.Thejudiciaryisnotindependentofsociety.Itisthe

partofsocietyandallthebestandbadprinciplesfollowedinsocietyreflectinthejudiciary.

Judges,Advocates andother staffs of the courts are coming from the same society.They

functioninthecourtwiththeirreligiousvaluesandbeliefswhichreflectintheirfunctions

whethergoodorbad.

Methodology:

Doctrinal methodology has been adopted for this work. Books, articles and

judgmentscouldreferforcompletionthiswork;thisworkwouldbegivenconclusionsfor

therealunderstandingofsocietyanditsimplicationsinIndiaandBhutan.Thispaperfocus


on critiqueonpresent judiciary in its function, representation, and appointment system,

thisworkcriticizingpresentjudiciarybecause,presentjudiciaryisnotacceptingmajority

of people, they are not ready to approach for their grievances, simply they are adopting

traditional methods of dispute solving systems. Therefore, this paper simply rejecting

present judiciary and criticizing it, bywhich transform of judiciarymay be happened in

future.Thispaperhasbeen favouredwith transform, if judiciary transforms,majorityof

peoplewillgetbenefitedandincludedintothejudiciary,butothersidesomeofpeoplewho

arebenefitingwithpresentjudiciarytheydon’twanttoreformortransformthejudiciary

becausetheyaresectariansandtheywantretainpresentsystemandfunctionofjudiciary.

According to Austin, law is command of sovereign backed by sanction, but this

definitionundergonecritique.HeresociologicaldefinitionaboutlawasperthePoundLaw

is body of principles recognized or enforced by public and regular tribunals in the

administrationofjustice2.AccordingtoidealisticdefinitionaspertheSalmondthelawmay

be difined as the body of the principles recognized and applied by the state in the

administration of justice3. The term lawmeans and includes different things in different

societies.Thecorrespondingwordof the term law inHindusystem isDharma in Islamic

systemit isHukuminRomanit isJusinFrenchit isDroit,andGermanit isRicht4.These

wordsconveydifferentmeaningsand ideas.Law ingeneralsense lawmeansanorderof

theuniverse,ofevents,ofthingsoractions.Initsjudicialsense,lawmeansabodyofrules

of conduct, actionorbehaviororperson,made andenforcedby the state. It expresses a

ruleof humanaction.All thedefinitionswereundergoing critique, but from thepoint of

viewofsocietylawmeansjustice,morality,reason,order,righteousnessetc5.inthiswork

findingabout lawinthepoint toreligiouspointofviewthat lawmeansReligiousbeliefs,

customs, traditions, and practices of particular religion in particular time in particular

place.

2 Dr. S. R. Myneni (2005). Jurisprudence (legal Theory), Asia Law House, Hyderabad, p.53. 3 Ibid.4 Ibid. 51 5 Ibid. 51.


According to Austin there are two kinds for source of laws which regulate the

society,oneisdivinelawsecondishumanlaw,whichmeansdivinecommandandhuman

command. Another positivistic jurist Salmond, divides source of law into formal and

material6. Formal Sources of Law is the will of the state as manifested in statutes or

decisionsofcourts.Itisthatforcewhicharuleofloanderivesitsforceandvalidity.These

arethesourcesfromwhichlawderivesitsforceandvalidity,alawenactedbytheStateor

Sovereign falls into this category. Second isMaterial Sources of Law is that source from

whichlawderivesnotitsvaliditybutthematterofwhichitiscomposed.Materialsources

are divisible into two classes – legal and historical7. It refers to the material of law. In

simplewords, it isallabout thematter fromwhere the lawsarederived.Customs fall in

this category of law. But it was criticizes by Allen Solmond for his attaching little

importance to the Historical source, Keetan to criticized too Salmond’s classification of

formal sources. According to him, inmodern times, the only formal source of law is the

Sate.Because,theStateisonlysourceforenforcingthelawandtechnicallythereisnolaw8.

AccordingtoHartthecombinationofprimaryrulesandsecondaryrulespreparea

legalsystem;thisexplainsthenatureoflaw.Accordingly,heexplainedthatprimaryrules

aredutyimposingruleswhilesecondaryrulesarepowerconferringrules.Accordingtothe

naturaliststhinkoflawinthetimeframeofcontinuumisthattheythinkitofdivineorigin

andapplicableinallagestotheuniverse.Theybelievedthatallgenerationsshouldfollow

thenaturallaw.Whilepositivistsbuilduptheirtheoryoflawasthecommandofsovereign.

The sovereign changes from time to time and his command may also change. As it is

bindingdutytofollowthecommand,itshouldbejustinpresent.Itmaychangeinfuture.

So, it isnotpossible forpositivists to think law in the time frameof continuumbutonly

present. Therefore, law is developed simultaneously man made law and historical

continuumthesearetheregulatingsourceforthehumanbeings,historicallaw/secondary

law/informal law/divine law is influencingeverymovementof individual, itdealwithall

aspects human beings, from times immemorial, therefore, historical law, custom, belief,

6 Dr. S. R. Myneni (2005). Jurisprudence (legal Theory), Asia Law House, Hyderabad, p.137. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. p.138.


practicearemorestrongerthanmanmadelaworprimarylaw,orformallaw,positivelaw,

oranalyticallaw,sohistoryisthemainandbiggersourceoflaw.

ThereisnouniformhistoryforIndia;infactIndiaisanewword.Itwascalledwith

variousnames;thereweresmallkingdoms,therewerediversecultures,traditions,values,

beliefsandpracticesaccordingtotheirnecessities.Historyispredominantlyinfluencedby

the political & religious sources. The dominant religious source and dominant political

practicebecomepopular inaparticularareaandgetprotectionby thekingsorstatesor

governmentswhichcanbenoticedfromHarappan,Sindhtimestopresentday.

Law is a command; it may be express or implied, written or unwritten, which

controls behavior of human beings. There are various sources for law through which

behavior of human beings is controlled, regulated and prevented like religion, culture,

traditions, values, beliefs and practices. In Indian sub-continent, there were diverse

religions,cultures,traditions,values,beliefsandpractices,andalsodiverselanguages,food

cultures, dress cultures.Within the religion, therewere different sects, castes and class.

Eachsub-continenthasitsownbeliefsystem,cultures,traditionsandpracticeswhichare

differentfromoneanother.

The philosophy of religion is to ensure equality, liberty, justice, fraternity to its

followers but yet at the same time the same religion is responsible for the corruption,

inequality, suppression, injustice, inhumanity in the particular society. In India, the

dominant religion philosophically led to corruption, inequality, suppression, injustice,

inhumanity and it has become impossible for it to achieve equality, liberty, justice and

fraternity.Here, every organ or institution promotes corruption, inequality, suppression,

injustice,inhumanityinthesociety.

HindureligionisthepopularanddominantreligionforIndiawhichwascreatedfor

retaindominanceinthesociety,wherethesocietyishavingcastesysteminitsphilosophy.

Which encouraging religion high and low status in social, economic and political

institutionsbasedonthecasteidentityandthecasteidentityisbasedonthebirth,where

thebirthisnotaaccidentbutimportant;thereare6747castes,peoplearedividedintoas


many as 6747 castes and there are 22 constitutionally recognized languages, but apart

from it there are 1,625 dialects, some having origin from Dravidian (Pracrutam) and

Sanskritlanguages,andmostofthemareneitherDravidiannorSanskrit,whicharetribal

languages.

The Hindu religion emerged with principles of inequality, suppression, injustice,

inhumanity in thenameofpurityand impurityconcept, lowandhighsocialstatus,some

casteshavingmorerespectedbasedontheirsocialstatus(caste),majoritycastesarehighly

humiliated, suppressed based on their low social status (caste). The dominant religion

created and constructed inequality, suppression, injustice, inhumanity in society, the

societyisregulatingorcommandingmoreunwritten(effective)lawsthanthewrittenlaws

bywhichthebehaviorofhumanbeingsarecontrolled,regulatedandprevented.

The judiciary is part of the society. All the religious, cultural, traditional beliefs,

practices and values reflect on the judiciary also. The judiciary is not independent of

society.Itisthepartofsocietyandallthebestandbadprinciplesfollowedinsocietyreflect

inthejudiciary.Judges,Advocates,andotherstaffsofthecourtsarecomingfromthesame

society.They function in thecourtwith theirreligiousvaluesandbeliefswhichreflect in

theirfunctionswhethergoodorbad.InthesocietylikeIndia,whichishavingcorruption,

suppression, injustice, inhumanity consciousness in the culture, tradition, beliefs, values

andpractices,howisitpossibleforajudgetobeindependent,unbiased,andseparatefrom

thesociety.Ifheorsheisalientothislandorforeigner,howcanaforeignergivejustice,if

he or she is not a local and is not well versedwith local culture, beliefs and practices?

Influenceofthereligion,culture,tradition,beliefs,practicesareresponsibleforcorruption,

delays,pendencyofcases,commercializationofcourtsandthesereflectincourtsbywayof

judgments,ordersanditsfunctions,processesetc.

AftertheBritishruleinIndiacameonelaw,theywereintroduceduniformlawsfor

India,Indiawasadoptedcolonialknowledgeoflawandfollowingthesamee.g.I.P.C.,C.P.C.,

Cr. P. C., Evidence Act, Contract Act so on. It is imperial knowledge of law, which was

derived fromWestbasically theirCulture,beliefs;practicesaredifferent fromthe Indian


realities. The same argumentmade by SwapanDas Gupta9 that self image of the Indian

intellectualwas the confusion overwhere he stood in relation to India. At one level, he

observed,nearlyallofwhatcertainIndianintellectualsrefertoasmodernthoughtcomes

to them through England and the medium of English. At the same time, there was the

reality of life in a traditional and largely Hindu milieu. It would not be an outlandish

exaggeration to say that it is impossible for a Indian of Hindu descent to cease to be a

Hindu10. TheBritish colonial rulewas imposed their imperial knowledge forcefully into

IndianTerritory, itwasadoptedby the Indiansafter independence.Therefore, there is a

contrary to IndiancultureandBritish culture, religious,belief, tradition, andpractice for

India,thesameisresponsibleforthehugependencyofcases,lackofjudgesanddiversityin

India.

After Independence, the Constitution of Indiawas adopted by the people of India

themselvesundertheconstituentassembly,theyframedabouttheappointmentofjudges

of High Courts and Supreme Court of India. Article 124 of the Constitution enabling

provisionforappointmentofjudgesinIndiaaccordingtoArticle124(1)Thereshallbea

SupremeCourtof IndiaconsistingofaChief Justiceof Indiaand,untilParliamentby law

prescribes a largernumber, ofnotmore than sevenother Judges. (2)Every Judgeof the

SupremeCourt shall be appointed by the President bywarrant under his hand and seal

afterconsultationwithsuchoftheJudgesoftheSupremeCourtandoftheHighCourtsin

theStatesasthePresidentmaydeemnecessaryforthepurposeandshallholdofficeuntil

heattainstheageofsixty-fiveyears:

ProvidedthatinthecaseofappointmentofaJudgeotherthantheChiefJustice,theChief

JusticeofIndiashallalwaysbeconsulted:Providedfurtherthat—

(a)aJudgemay,bywritingunderhishandaddressedtothePresident,resignhisoffice;

(b)aJudgemayberemovedfromhisofficeinthemannerprovidedinclause(4).

[(2A)TheageofaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtshallbedeterminedbysuchauthorityandin

suchmannerasParliamentmaybylawprovide.]

9 Published an Article in Times of India., Daily English News Paper, Dated 18-10-2015. p.15.10 Swapan Das Gupta (2015). Our culture Wars are more a clash of lifestyles than ideas, Times of India English Daily News Paper, Dated 18-10-2015. p.15.


(3)ApersonshallnotbequalifiedforappointmentasaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtunless

heisacitizenofIndiaand—

(a)hasbeenforatleastfiveyearsaJudgeofaHighCourtoroftwoormoresuchCourtsin

succession;or

(b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two ormore such

Courtsinsuccession;or

(c)is,intheopinionofthePresident,adistinguishedjurist.

ExplanationI.—Inthisclause"HighCourt''meansaHighCourtwhichexercises,orwhichat

anytimebeforethecommencementofthisConstitutionexercised,jurisdictioninanypart

oftheterritoryofIndia.

Explanation II.—In computing for the purpose of this clause the period during which a

personhasbeenanadvocate,anyperiodduringwhichapersonhasheldjudicialofficenot

inferiortothatofadistrictjudgeafterhebecameanadvocateshallbeincluded.

(4)AJudgeoftheSupremeCourtshallnotberemovedfromhisofficeexceptbyanorderof

thePresidentpassedafteranaddressbyeachHouseofParliamentsupportedbyamajority

ofthetotalmembershipofthatHouseandbyamajorityofnotlessthantwothirdsofthe

membersofthatHousepresentandvotinghasbeenpresentedtothePresidentinthesame

sessionforsuchremovalonthegroundofprovedmisbehaviourorincapacity.

(5)Parliamentmaybylawregulatetheprocedureforthepresentationofanaddressand

for the investigationandproofof themisbehaviouror incapacityofa Judgeunderclause

(4).

(6)EverypersonappointedtobeaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtshall,beforeheentersupon

his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that

behalfbyhim,anoathoraffirmationaccordingtotheformsetoutforthepurposeinthe

ThirdSchedule.

(7)NopersonwhohasheldofficeasaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtshallpleadoractinany

courtorbeforeanyauthoritywithintheterritoryofIndia.


TheSupremeCourtheldandcreatedanewprincipleinSupremeCourtAdvocates-

on-RecordAssociationv.Unionof India11popularlyknownas second judge’s case.Main

argument in first judges and second judges cases that politicians or legislatives and

executiveheadstateareappointingpoliticallymotivatedadvocatesas judges intohigher

judiciary therefore, the independence of judiciary influenced with political motivated

activities.The legislatorsarenothavingcommitment, theyarenothigh-qualitypeople to

selectajudge,therefore,theindependenceofjudiciaryisaffected.

Mainargument in thiscontext is thataccordingtoPreambleof theConstitutionof

India, India is Republic means the king shall be elected by the people of the country

whether directly or indirectly, people are real authority to appoint executive head,

including judges whether directly or indirectly. In second judges case12 Judges of Apex

Court were suspected people representatives and their decision, but in textual spirit of

Constitutionpeopleofcountryhavingrealsovereignpowerintheirhands,itmeansjudges

aresuspectingsovereignauthorityandpeopledirectioninIndiatherefore,itcanbecallit

as judgesmisinterpreted,misused and theywere suspected their powermoreover they

havemisinterpretedandcreatedcollegiumsystemwithirresponsiblemannerandthatis

continuingwithoutrectification.

In theyear2013UPAGovernment introducedandpasseda legislationofNational

JudicialAppointmentCommission(NJAC)accordingto the2013Act thePresidentwho is

executive head shall consult NJAC consisting of LawMinister and two eminent persons

equal to the CJI in recommending appointments as CJI, Judges of Supreme Court, Chief

JusticesandotherJudgesoftheHighCourts,whichisgivingfairchancesallthesectionsof

societywhoishavingskill,qualityinsubjectknowledgeandsocialunderstandinginIndian

context who may enter into Higher Judiciary and also having chance to SC, STs, OBC,

Minority, Disabled, Transgender sections of Indian society. Theremay ample chances to

check quality and merit of judges, and it will also give fair competition among all the11 Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record Association Vs UOI reported in 1993 (4) SCC 441 and Special Reference 1 of 1998 reported in 1998 (7) SCC 739 12 Ibid.


candidatesfromallthesectionsofsociety.ButtheNJACwasscrapedoutwiththeverdictof

SupremeCourtofIndia13.

SupremeCourtAdvocates-on-RecordAssociationandanotherv.UnionofIndiathe

SupremeCourtofIndiaheldthattheNJAC14.Thereisalsonomeritinthecontentionthatin

thepresentcasemerealterationinaconstitutionalprovisiondoesnotamounttodamage

of a basic feature. It is not a case of simple amendment to iron out creases. Its impact

clearlyaffectstheindependenceofjudiciary.Asalreadymentioned,appointmentofjudges

hasalwaysbeenconsideredintheschemeoftheworkingoftheIndianConstitutiontobe

integraltotheindependenceofjudiciary.Itisforthisreasonthatprimacyinappointment

of judges has always been intended to be of the judiciary. Pre-dominant role of the

Executive is not permissible. Such primacy comprises of initiating the proposal by the

judiciary and final word being normally with the CJI (in representative capacity). This

schemeisbeyondthepowerofamendmentavailabletotheParliament15.

[In thenewscheme, theChief Justicesof theHighCourtshavenotbeenprovided

anyconstitutionalsay.TheChiefJusticeoftheHighCourtisinabetterpositiontoinitially

assess the merit of a candidate for appointment as judge of the High Court. The

constitutionalamendmentdoesnotprovideforanyroletotheChiefMinisteroftheState.

This may affect the quality of the candidate selected and thereby the independence of

judiciary.ThestatutoryprovisionintheNJACActwillbegoneintoseparately]16.[Iwould

concludethatthenewschemedamagesthebasicfeatureoftheConstitutionunderwhich

primacyinappointmentofjudgeshastobewiththejudiciary.Underthenewschemesuch

primacyhasbeengivenago-bye.Thustheimpugnedamendmentcannotbesustained].

13 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015 14 Ibid.15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.


ValidityoftheNJACAct:

[Inviewofmyconclusionabout theamendmentbeingbeyond the competenceof

theParliament,IdonotconsideritnecessarytodiscussthevalidityoftheNJACActingreat

detail as the said Act cannot survive once the amendment is struck down. However,

consistentwithmyearlierviewthatprimacyofjudiciaryinappointmentofjudgescannot

becompromisedandonthatgroundnotonlySection2oftheAmendmentdispensingwith

the mandatory consultation with the judiciary as contemplated under the unamended

provisions,Section3conferringpowerontheNJAC(underArticle124B)andprovidingfor

compositionof theCommissionunderArticle124Agivingarole to theLawMinisterand

two eminent persons equal to the CJI in recommending appointments as CJI, Judges of

Supreme Court, Chief Justices and other Judges of the High Courts and recommending

transferofChiefJusticesandJudgesoftheHighCourtsareunconstitutionalbutalsoArticle

124CgivingpowertotheParliamenttoregulatetheprocedureandtolaydownthemanner

ofselectionwasalsounconstitutional,theimpugnedActhastobestruckdown.Itgoesfar

beyondtheproceduralaspects.InSection5(2)‘suitabilitycriteria’islefttobeworkedout

byregulations.SecondprovisotoSection5(2)andSection6(6)givevetototwomembers

oftheCommissionwhichisnotcontemplatedbytheAmendment.Section5(3)andSection

6(8)provideforconditionsforselectiontobelaiddownbyregulationswhicharenotmere

proceduralmatters.Section6authorizestherecommendationsforappointmentasjudges

oftheHighCourtswithouttheproposalbeingfirstinitiatedbytheChiefJusticeoftheHigh

Court.Section6(1)providesforrecommendationforappointmentofChiefJusticeofaHigh

Court on the basis of inter se seniority of High Court Judges. This may affect giving

representation to asmanyHighCourts as viable as, in inter se seniority,many judges of

only oneHigh Courtmay be seniormost. Section 6 (2) provides for seeking nomination

fromChief Justices ofHigh Courts, but Section 6 (3) empowers the Commission itself to

make recommendation for appointment as Judge of the High Court and seek comments

fromChiefJusticeaftershortlistingthecandidatesbyitself.Section8enablestheCentral

Government toappointofficersandemployeesof theCommissionand to laydown their

conditionsofservice.TheSecretaryoftheGovernmentistheConvenoroftheCommission.


Section13requiresallregulationstobeapprovedbytheParliament.Theseprovisionsin

theActimpingeupontheindependenceofjudiciary.Evenifthedoctrineofbasicstructure

isnotappliedinjudgingthevalidityofaparliamentarystatute,independenceofjudiciary

and rule of law are parts of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and absence of

independenceofjudiciaryaffectsthesaidFundamentalRights.TheNJACActisthusliable

to be struck down]17. There aremany positive provisions to protect diversity but in the

nameof independent judiciary itwas struckdownand this order is critiquebyWomen,

disabled,Transgender,BCs,SCsandTribesinIndia.

Somanath Charterjee Criticised by stating that legislators deciding their salaries

themselvesandjudgesareappointingtheirsuccessorsthemselves18Thereisnosystemis

like this therefore these systems are unaccountable to people of the country these two

systemsshallbemakeaccountableotherwise, thesearecontinuedundemocratically.And

he argued about Indian Judiciary following words [“today deprecated attempts by the

Supreme Court to “arrogate all powers” in appointments to higher courts and said the

Executiveshould“notgiveup”attemptstosetthingsright,whileavoidinga“runningfeud”

withtheJudiciary.TheformerParliamentarian,whooftenfoughtagainstattemptsbythe

judiciarytoencroachuponthelegislature’sturf,saysitwastimethejudiciaryengagedin

some introspection in thewakeof the SupremeCourt judgmentwhichbrought back the

collegiumsystem.Chatterjee,whoisabarristerandwasasenioradvocateintheSupreme

Court for several years,saidtheExecutive should “not giveup” its attempts to set things

rightinjudicialappointments,“butshouldnothavearunningfeudwiththejudiciary]”.

[Noting that one of the judges on the apex court bench has voiced dissent to the

majorityjudgment,hewantedtheExecutivetomoveslowly“inapropermannerandata

proper time”. “It is time for introspection for judiciary.Executiveshouldnotgiveup,but

should not have a running feudwith the judiciary. It should proceed ahead in a proper

17 Ibid. 18 India is unique. It is the only democracy where judges can appoint judges and MPs can decide their own salaries” was the lament of Somnath Chatterjee, then speaker of the Lok Sabha. On the appointment of judges, Parliament did try to “correct” the interpretation that had brought in the collegium system. But the apex court’s verdict on the constitutional validity of the new system is awaited.


manner at a proper time. Already one judge has dissented,” he said. He said India is

perhapstheonlycountrywherejudgesappointjudgesandthattheyare“tootouchyabout

thisarrogationofpowertothemselves.”“ThisauthorityisneitherthereintheConstitution

nor in law,butby judgments theyhavedecided that judgeswill beappointedby judges.

Howmanycountriesintheworldfollowthispractice.Itcouldhavebeenfollowedbyone

ortwobananarepublics.Idon’tknow.Someonecanteachme,”hesaid.Chatterjeesaidhe

wasneverinfavourofcollegiumsystemandwonderedifitwasfool-proof.“Questionisto

get the best people appointed by thosewho have been authorized to do so,” he said. It

needstobeseenwhethercollegiumsystembroughtextraordinarybenefitstothejudiciary

or to judicial appointments. “On theotherhand, therearea lotofallegations. I ammore

concerned…Every Indian would have been beholden if they had tried to help people of

India, if expeditious justice at not much cost was really meted out to them,” he said.

ChatterjeesaidnotmanypeopletodaycanaffordtoapproachtheSupremecourtandhire

anadvocatetoagitatetheirmatter.“WhattheSupremeCourtisdoingforordinarycitizens

of India? Courts have arrogated allwisdomandpower. Even after the entire Parliament

unanimouslyapprovedthenewlaw,itwasstruckdown,”hesaid.Healsowonderedasto

why the SupremeCourtwashearing thematteron the issueof improving the collegium

systemwhen“judgesknoweverything”].

The Supreme Court of India struck down law of Parliament for National Judicial

AppointmentCommissionagainandagain, the contentionof SupremeCourt is clear that

the MPs coming from criminal back ground and they are sending their kith and kin

advocatesas Judges toHighCourtsandSupremeCourt.But inmypoint is thatpeopleof

this country having sovereign authority and they are sending their representatives to

Parliamentandtheexecutive, judiciary including legislatorsshall followpeopleswillbut,

judiciaryisnotrespectingpeoplewillandsuspectingtheirselection(voting).Thereasons

canunderstandwithstudyingIndiansocialandculturalhistory.


Thepresentjudiciaryisnotforthepeople,ofthepeople,andbythepeopleasitis

notdemocratic, it isanti-people19andit isnotrespectingaspirationsofthepeopleofthe

country. Indian jurisprudence is not indigenous but adopted from West; those are not

relevant to Indian reality and aspirations. The Indian diversity as it is a set of diverse

religions,cultures,traditions,beliefs,valuesandpractices.Thedominantreligiousculture,

tradition, belief, value and practice became popular and its values, beliefs and practices

became general for all. The modern judiciary is successor of English judiciary; it was

introducedforthecontrol,regulation,administrationofnativeIndians.Basically,thelaws

andjudiciaryofEnglishwasagainstIndiannatives,thosewereintroducedforexploitation

of resources from India. The ways were followed, practiced but those laws were not

relevanttoIndianrealityandthoselawsandjudiciarycontinuedevenafterindependence,

naturally those laws and institutions are anti people continuing with suppression of

commonman.

IndianJudiciaryandotherchallenges:

ThreetirestructurehavingforthefunctioningofjudiciaryinIndia,SupremeCourt,

HighCourtandLowerJudiciary.It isnothingbuttheHinduphilosophicalsocialstructure

(varna),itisreplicaofvarnastructureconstructedandfollowedbythedominantreligious

rulingcastesinIndiansociety,processisverycomplex,languageisEnglish,whichmajority

of people do not understand, there are varies stages and procedures for filing cases,

appeals etc. A commonman cannot effort to get the justice; in fact, they are unable to

approachthemodernjudiciary.Theoperationis,atthetopissupremecourthavingmore

discretionary powers, middle is high court having normal discretionary powers, lower

judiciary is having low discretionary powers so it is same replica or traditional social

structure,processandoperationofHinduculture.

19 Vibhudi Venkateshwarlu (2014). Social Diversity and Judiciary in India, Theses submitted in the Department of Social Exclusion Studies, EFL University, Hyderabad


Themodern judiciary is not addressing aspirations of people because of delay of

cases, huge amount of pendency of cases in various courts, sky rocketing expenses to

approachthecourts,andcorruptionofcourtsaretheproblemsformodernjudiciary.The

modern judiciary of India is not democratic and it is anti-people. Even appointments of

Judgesarenottransparentandwithoutdiversity.ThereisnodiversityinIndianJudiciary

recently, the Government of India tried to introduce National Judicial Appointment

CommissionwhichwillgivefairchancetoallthesectionspeopleinIndiatobecomejudges

intheHigherJudiciary,butitwasstruckdownmerelybeingamonopolyofupperstrataof

societyleadingtocorruption,delay,pendency,costlyetc.Thecommonmanisscaredofthe

modern judiciary; in fact, they are following and settling their disputes with their

traditionalmethodsandpractices.Themodernjudiciaryisnotrespectingtheaspirationsof

all people of society and it isworking for the few sections,which are elite, politically&

religiouslydominantinIndiansociety.

Vacancies in various courts leading to injustice to the parties in India, 24 High

Courts have 397 vacancies for judges20; what’s more eight of them have acting chief

justices,inalltheHighCourtsinIndia397Judgesarevacantoutof1,017postsofjustices

theHigh Courts are lying vacant that’s a vacancy level of 39%, a serious shortfallwhen

lakhsofcasesarepending in theHighCourts21. It isacommonsaying that Indiancourts

movesoslowlythatthegrandsonendsupfightingthecourtcasethathisgrandfatherfiles.

Whatdoesthismeanfortheinheritancewewillleaveourchildren?Over3.15crorecases

are pending across India. This suggests over 3 crore plaintiffs or petitioners. After

accounting for the large number of cases instituted by government, defendants could

numberaround9croreassumingeachlegalcaseinvolves3-5defendants.That’s12crore

litigants. Assume each litigant has 3 family members. This implies that a staggering 36

croreIndiancitizensaredirectlyorindirectlyinvolvedinlitigationatanypointoftime22.

20 Shankar.Raghuraman (2015). The Times of India English Daily News Paper, Dated 18-10-2015, P.1 (main page). 21 Ibid. 22 Naval Choudary, The Times of India (2015). A Little Less Litigation, dated 27-10-2015, p.14.


In otherwords, today every fourth person in our society is a litigant (directly or

indirectly)andinanother20yearsorsothisnumbercouldswelltoeverysecondperson.

That’s thekindofsociety Indiansarecreatinganationof litigants.This isbecauseof the

waylawhasbeenpracticedforthelast67years23.Indianhaveabout16,000judgestodeal

with 66,000pending cases across the apex court, 45 lakh in the 24 high courts, and 2.7

croreacrossthedistrictandsubordinatecourts.Howfastisthismountainofpendingcases

likelytobedealtwith?

TheSupremeCourtwasconstitutedin1950andithasdelivered40,000judgments

in 65 years that comes to 600 judgments per year. If it nowdelivers 1,000 judgments a

year,thatwillstilltakeover60yearstodealwithcurrentlypendingcasesnotaccounting

for new cases. Assuming a high court judge would deliver 2 judgments per day or 500

judgmentsperyear,all24highcourtswith640 judgesmay take15years to tackle their

pendingcases.Asforthedistrictandsubordinatecourts,with15,000judgestheymaytake

about10years todealwith their2.7 crorepending cases assumingevery judgedelivers

200 judgments a year24. These are staggering time frames to deal with ever mounting

litigationinIndia.

There are many recommendations were given by various committee’s that, to

employmorejudgesandcreatemorecourts.Thecurrentjudgetopopulationratiois just

10.5to10lakh.TheLawCommissionhasrecommended25itshouldbe50to10lakh.This

can be accomplished over 3 years as India has 12 lakh registered advocates, 950 law

schools, 4-5 lakh law students, and 60,000-70,000 law graduates joining the legal

professioneveryyear. Surely thispool canbe tapped to recruit judges for all the courts.

Thiswillprovidegainfulemploymenttolegalprofessionalswhilemakingthemountainof

pendingcasesmanageable.Increasethenumberofworkinghoursandworkingdaysforall

courts. FormerChief Justice of IndiaRMLodhahad once observed thatwhenhospitals,

23 Ibid.24 Ibid. 25 The 121 Law Commission Report (1987) Headed by Desai D.A. (Charman). A New Forum for Judicial Appointment of India.


airlines and trains can work 24×7, why can’t the courts? This single measure can

dramaticallyreducebacklog26.

Thestaffof thecourtalwaysexpectbribe fromthe litigants,evenadvocatesevery

timetheyareaskingmoneyforassistanceincases,infact,theysalariedemployeesinthe

courtswhycan’ttheirworkismonitoredbyCCCameras,whycan’ttakelegalactionagainst

them. Courts must also punish those providing false evidence and false testimony,

includinglawyers.Thisagainwilldiscouragelawyersdraggingcasestoeternity.Finally,all

courtsshouldfollowtheSupremeCourt’sadviceto limit lengthyargumentsbyadvocates

withinagreedtimelimits.Thegoalmustbe“lean,tothepointjudgmentsdeliveredinquick

time”27.

Bhutan:

InmountainousBhutan,geographical isolation(landlockedcountry)hashelped in

conservinglocalculturesandtraditionsinisolatedpockets.Thesmallpopulationofabout

700,000(SevenLakhs)issaidtospeak19livinglanguages.Manyofthesecommunitiesare

smallinnumbers,economicallyandsociallymarginalized,andliveinremoteregions.With

road access and penetration of global forces like the media and international markets,

manyofthesecommunitiesareintransitionandtheirdistinctiveculturalpracticesarein

seriousdangerofbeinglostwithouthavingbeendocumented28.

Archeologicalevidencesuggests thatBhutanwas inhabitedasearlyas2000B.C.E.

Oral tradition indicates that at the beginning of the first millennium, the country was

inhabited by semi-nomadic herdsmenwhomovedwith their livestock from foot hills to

grazinggroundsinhighervalleysinthesummer.LikeotherinhabitantsoftheHimalayan

region, theywere animists,many ofwhom followed theBon religion,which held sacred

trees,lakes,andmountains.26 Ibid.9 27 Ibid.28 Kunzang Dorji, Kesang Choden & Walter Roder(2013). Diversity in Food Ways of Bhutanese Communities Brought About by Ethnicity and Environment, Journal of Bhutan Studies Vol 28, Summer 2013.


By theeighthcenturyC.E.,with theadventofBuddhismin theeasternHimalayas,

Bhutan’shistorybecamecloselyentwinedwithreligiousfiguresandthemythsandlegends

associated with them. Buddhism practiced in Bhutan. But there are still some isolated

pockets in the country where the Bon religion, with its shamanistic practices, lives on.

Bhutanesecultureremainsbothdeeplyspiritualandrobustlyearthly,owingmuchtothe

religioustraditionsthathaveinfluencedthecountryformorethanathousandyears.

Today, more than 2,000 temples and monasteries throughout Bhutan and the

ubiquitous presence of red-robed monks indicate the important role that Buddhism

continuestoplayinalmosteveryaspectofBhutaneselife.Everydistrictinthecountryhas

a dzong, which houses the official local monastic community, and several temples. And

everyvillagehasatemple,aroundwhichthelifeofthecommunityrevolves.Publicculture

in Bhutan has since the earliest historical times revolved around community life and

religion.ThetwowereinterlinkedinBuddhistteachingsbroughttoBhutanfromTibetby

monksinsearchofconvertsinwhatwereoncewildernessareasoftheHimalayas.

ThethirdDrukGyalpo,HMJigmeDorjiWangchuck,(1952-1972)wasthearchitect

ofmodernBhutan.Hisrulehasbeendedicatedtoreformandrestructuringoftheexisting

politicalandeconomicsystemtoallowthekingdom,inaworldthatwaschangingrapidly

outside,toadapttonewchallenges.Asfarasinstitutionswereconcerned,heseparatedthe

judiciary from the executive by establishing a High Court and re-organized the judicial

systemonmodernlines.

AftercreatingtheTshogdu(NationalAssembly)in1953,heprogressivelyincreased

itsroleandpowers.In1965,theKingalsoestablishedtheLodoiTshogde(RoyalAdvisory

Council) and in1968, he createdwhatbecame the first council ofministers inBhutan29.

Recently,thejudiciaryofBhutanhasalsoinstitutionalizedtheprocessofdraftinglawsand

29 Thierry Mathou, March (1999). Bhutan: Political Reform in a Buddhist Monarchy, Journal of Bhutan Studies.


regulations with support from foreign experts provided by UNDP30. Those lawsmay be

influencedwiththehistoricalandreligious,beliefs,practiceswhicharebasicallyBhuddist

dominantprinciplesvalues,beliefsandpractices.

According to Lyonpo SonamTobgye,who served as the Chair of the Constitution

DraftingCommittee,31 ‘[t]hereisnomentionofreligionandcultureinanyconstitutionof

any other country except in theConstitution ofBhutan.Religion and culture play a vital

role. Religion provides values and moral thread at the same time as culture exhibits a

separate identityandunity.’32Thesewouldpredictablybe interpretedasobstructions to

individual liberty. According to the wisdom of liberal democracy, these types of

constitutionalclausesriskleavingthedefinitionofa‘goodsociety’inthehandsofthefew

whomayarticulateparticularisticinterests33.Decisionsthattheymakeshouldbebasedon

reasonandsupportedbyempirical(collectingfromthepeopledirectly)dataifavailable34.

Incaseofpublic issues, lawsandpoliciesshouldbe framedthroughcollectivediscussion

andreasoningthatneedstobejustifiedtothepublicwhoaresourceofpoliticalauthority.35

Bhutanese appear to be treacherous robbers, a cruel and treacherous race and

absolutelywithoutshamewhodistinguishedthemselvesbytreachery, fraud,andmurder

andwereanidlerace,indifferenttoeverythingexceptfightingandkillingoneanother,in

which they seem to take real pleasure36. For a Bhutanese crime was the only claim to

distinction and honour37 and their nation had no ruling class, no literature, no national

30 Ibid.p.143. 31 The drafting committee was formed in November 2001 at the authorization of the King. It consisted of thirty-nine representatives from different sections of the society (the central monk body, the twenty districts, the judiciary, and government administration), with Chief Justice, Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye as the chairperson.32 Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye, “The Making of the Constitution,” Kuensel newspaper, November 3, 2012. 33 Katsu Masaki (2013). Exploring Bhutan’s ‘Natural Democracy’: In Search of an Alternative View of Democracy, Journal of Bhutan Studies Vol 28, Summer 2013. 34 Sangay Chophel (2010). Culture, Public Policy and Happiness (Researcher, The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Correspondence: [email protected]). 35 Ibid. p.91. 36Dr. Sonam B. Wangyal(). A Cheerless Change: Bhutan Dooars to British Dooars, Dr. Sonam B. Wangyal is an Indian doctor running a clinic in Jaigaon, a border town abutting Phuentsholing. He was a columnist for Himal, The Himalayan Magazine (Kathmandu) and The Statesman, NB Plus (Siliguri & Calcutta). He currently runs a weekly column in a Sikkim daily, Now and a Kalimpong fortnightly Himalayan Times. 37Eden, Ashley: Report on the State of Bootan, and the Progress of the Mission of 1863-64, in a combined volume titled Political Mission to Bootan (Henceforth PMTB), Majusri Publishing House, New Delhi, 1972 (1865), pp.15,


prideinthepastoraspirationsforthefutureandthattherewerenoreliablehistory,and

verylittletradition.38Eden'sunlimitedscornofBhutanisdifficulttoabsorbevenifoneis

charitably blessedwith a soft and spongymindset.Of the revenue systemhe concluded,

Strictlyspeakingthereisnosystem.TheonlylimitontheRevenuedemandisthenatural

limitof thepowerof theofficial toextortmore.39Commentingon the Judiciaryhescoffs

that, the Bhutanese have no laws, either written or of usage and where religion was

concerned he berates that the Bhutanese only nominally profess the Buddhist

religion…theirreligiousexercisesaremerelyconfinedtothepropitiationofevilspiritsand

genii,andthemechanicalrecitalsofafewsacredsentences.40

Onemeasureofhappiness,then,becomesthedegreetowhichpublicpolicymaking

demonstrates diversity (in terms of age, sex, occupation, ethnicity, views, etc) in

deliberation.Deliberationshouldnotbebasedonlyonquantitativedatabutalsoonvalues.

If rightpoliciesare framedand implemented then it is likely thatsocietywouldnavigate

towards happiness. This entails formulation and implementation of programmes and

projects based on these policies. Even programmes and projects should be subjected to

democratic consensus. Bhutan’s fourth king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, coined the term

GrossNationalHappinessinthelate1980sarguingthatGrossNationalHappinessismore

important than Gross Domestic Product.41 His vision was to create a GNH society: an

enlightenedsociety inwhichhappinessandwellbeingofallpeopleandsentientbeingsis

theultimatepurposeofgovernance42.

Bhutanconstitution:

Article 21: (4) of the Constitution of Bhutan the Chief Justice of Bhutan shall be

appointedfromamongtheDrangponsoftheSupremeCourtorfromamongeminentjurists

bytheDrukGyalpo,bywarrantunderHishandandsealinconsultationwiththeNational 57, 87, 115, 130, 123. 38Ibid. 39Ibid. 40 Ibid.41As cited by Ura 2008, para.1. 42Ibid. Para.2.


JudicialCommission.AccordingtotheconstitutionalprovisionsofBhutantheKingwhois

executive head appointing High Court and Supreme Court judges with consultation of

NationalJudicialCommissionofBhutan,theKinghasdiscretionarypowerwhileappointing

thejudges.TheNJChaveagreatroletoassistingkinginappointmentofjudges.

NationalJudicialCommission:

AccordingtoArticle21:(17)ConstitutionofBhutantheDrukGyalposhallappoint

members of the National Judicial Commission bywarrant under His hand and seal. The

NationalJudicialCommissionshallcomprise:

(a)TheChiefJusticeofBhutanasChairperson;

(b)TheseniormostDrangponoftheSupremeCourt;

(c)TheChairpersonoftheLegislativeCommitteeoftheNationalAssembly;and

(d)TheAttorneyGeneral.

(18) Every person has the right to approach the courts in matters arising out of the

Constitutionorotherlawssubjecttosection23ofArticle7.

There are minority religions Islam, Christian, and Hindu people are having fair

chances along with Bhuddist people of Bhutan to enter into Higher Judiciary, but some

people fromMuslim, Christian andHinduminority people basically non citizens are not

having right to enter into the Judiciary. Recently, Bhutan courts are equipped with

computers and computers havebeen in use especially in the case of Judiciary ofBhutan

fromearly1990’s.TheJudiciarywithathreelevelofappealsystem,theHighCourtinthe

apex,theDistrictandSub-DistrictCourtsassubordinateiswellequippedwithcomputers

madeavailableboththroughRGOBfundingandsupportfromUNDPandDANIDAprojects.

TheJudiciaryretainstheobjectivesthattheInformationtechnologyisapowerfulresource,

for the court system to function as being accessible, fair, accountable, transparent, and

effectiveandtimely(theconceptofdueprocess)intheadministrationofjustice.Fordetail

reportssee‘RoyalCourtofJustice,StrategicITPlan43.

43 Drew Jackson, Umesh Pradhan and Bob Mortgenthaler, 5 May, 2000, High Court of Bhutan, Thimphu.


Religiousmoralityisnotallowedtohunt,cuttingoftrees,steal,lieandhurtothers

no need to regulate them, the religion is the biggest regulation of society, the religious

moralityisgoverningthepeople,andpeopleinnermoralityisalwaysconsciouslyguiding

the people that hunting is sin, cutting of tree is sin, and stealing is sin, then no need to

police, and administration of justice. Mainly, the court role is very less. Ultimately, the

religiousmoralityleadstohappinessinthesociety,notonlyinBhutaniffollowthesemoral

principlesthesocietywillremainshappyandthepeoplewillremainshappy.Compareto

Indiamajoritypeoplenearly75%arefollowingHindureligion,andotherreligionsIslam,

and Christianity influenced with Hindu practices and beliefs. Where the people inner

morality is allowing hunting, stealing, lying, and hurt others, the religious philosophy is

giving justification for those acts44, required more police, courts and administration of

justice,peopleareleadingmechanicallife.

Conclusions:

TheWesternconceptof Independenceof Judiciary ismyth for India.Thereligious

values, beliefs, practices are responsible every acts of the human society like India and

Bhutan,whatevergoodandbadnotionsofreligiousvalues,beliefsandpracticesseeninthe

judiciaryalso, judiciary isnot independent to societyandstate ratherpartof thesociety

Judges,advocates,otherstaffofcourtscomingfromthesocietyandfunctioningforitwith

theirprenotions.

Diversity is comes from the religious values, practices and beliefs where the

diversity is not allowed in their religion it is not possible into the judiciary also. Simple

statementsandwritingintheConstitutionoranyotherlegaldocumentsisnotpossibleto

bringdiversityintothejudiciary.

44 Hindu Sacred Texts Bhagavat Geeta and Manu Code, the first one is having religious philosophy and second one is governing text for Hindu religious society, these texts were written by Veda Vyas and Manu respectively and strictly implemented during Gupta dynasty period and continuously followed the same still 1950, when Indian Constitution was introduced.


Social reforms are verymuchnecessary for the Indian society for achievement of

political reforms, modern judiciary will not success, it is almost failure system for the

Indian society and people are not interested to approach to judiciary in India. Indian

commonman isnothappywithmodern judiciaryof India.Because,of corruption,delay,

pendency of cases, language barrier, lack of representation from all the sections in the

society.

Appointmentswillnotaffectindependenceofthejudiciary,appointmentsarepurely

consideredadministrativeaction it isnot judicial function, thereshouldbeacreator that

creator should be third person. Finally the diversity will give trust; real representation

ultimatelyleadshappinessorwellbeinginthesociety.

Bibliography:AbhishekSinghvi(2015).UsurpingParliament’sPowerinsteadofabortingNJAC,SupremeCourt should have given it a fair chance to succeed. NJAC verdict redeems judiciary’sinherentstrength.TimesofIndiaNewsPaperdated19-10-2015.Chinnappa Reddy. O. Justice (2008). The Court and the Constitution of India, OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.Desai D.A. Charman for 121 Law Commission Report (1987). A New Forum for JudicialAppointmentofIndia.DhananjayMahapatra(2015).NJACverdictredeemsjudiciary’sinherentstrength.TimesofIndiaNewsPaperdated19-10-2015.DrewJackson,UmeshPradhanandBobMortgenthaler,5May,2000,HighCourtofBhutan,Thimphu.Eden,Ashley:ReportontheStateofBootan,andtheProgressoftheMissionof1863-64,ina combined volume titled Political Mission to Bootan (Henceforth PMTB), MajusriPublishingHouse,NewDelhi.Fali S. Nariman (2013). The State of the Nation in the Context of India’s Constitution,Faridabad,Haryana:ThomsonPress(India)Ltd.GeorgeH.Gadbois, Jr. (2011). JudgesofSupremeCourtof India,OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi.


KatsuMasaki(2013).ExploringBhutan’s‘NaturalDemocracy’:InSearchofanAlternativeViewofDemocracy,JournalofBhutanStudiesVol28,Summer2013.Kunzang Dorji, Kesang Choden & Walter Roder(2013). Diversity in Food Ways ofBhutaneseCommunitiesBroughtAboutbyEthnicityandEnvironment, JournalofBhutanStudiesVol28,Summer2013.LyonpoSonamTobgye,“TheMakingoftheConstitution,”Kuenselnewspaper,November3,2012.MarianGallenkamp(2010).DemocracyinBhutanAnAnalysisofConstitutionalChangeinaBuddhistMonarchyInstituteofPeaceandConflictStudies(IPCS).Maneesha Tikear (2014). Constitutionalism and Democracy in South Asia PoliticalDevelopmentsinIndia’sneighbourhood,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Mathou,Thierry.1999.“PoliticalReforminBhutan:ChangeinaBuddhistMonarchy”.AsianSurveyVol.39(4).Myneni.S.R.Dr.(2005).Jurisprudence(legalTheory),AsiaLawHouse,Hyderabad,India.NilakshiJatar&laxmiParanjape(2012).LegalHistoryEvolutionoftheIndianLegalSystem,Lucknow:EasternBookCompanyPublishing(P)Ltd.Panikkar.K.M.(2004).CasteandDemocracy,CriticalQuest,NewDelhi.Pattanaik,SmrutiS.1998.”PoliticalReformsinBhutan:Re-establishingtheOldOrder”.StrategicAnalysisVol.22(6).Rajeev Bhargava (2010). Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution, Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.RanabirSamaddar(2009).StateofJusticeinIndia,SagePublicationsIndia(Pvt.)Ltd.NewDelhi.RanojoySen(2011).LegalisingReligion,theIndianSupremeCourtandSecularism,CriticalQuest,NewDelhi.SangayChophel (2010).Culture,PublicPolicyandHappiness (Researcher, theCentre forBhutanStudies.Correspondence.Seervai H.M. (2012). Constitutional Law of India, (4th Ed.), New Delhi: Universal LawPublishingCo.(P)Ltd.


ShyamK.Sriram(2006).CasteandtheCourt:ExaminingJudicialSelectionBiasonBenchAssignmentsintheIndianSupremeCourt.AThesisSubmittedfortheDegreeofMasterofArts.GeorgiaStateUniversity,Georgia.Sodhi.S.S. Justice (2007).TheOtherSideof Justice,HayHouse India,PrintedatThomsonPressIndiaLtd.Sonam B. Dr. Wangyal (2013). A Cheerless Change: Bhutan Dooars to British Dooars,Jaigom,India.SudhishPai.V.(2014).WorkingoftheConstitutionChecksandBalances,Lucknow:EasternBookCompanyPublishing(P)Ltd.ThierryMathou,March(1999).Bhutan:PoliticalReforminaBuddhistMonarchy,JournalofBhutanStudies.TheConstitutionoftheIndia,availableathttp://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdfTheConstitutionoftheKingdomofBhutan. Availableathttp://www.constitution.bt/html/constitution/constitution.htmTimesofIndiaNewsPaperdated18thOctober,2015VibhudiVenkateshwarlu(2014).SocialDiversityandJudiciaryinIndia,ThesessubmittedintheDepartmentofSocialExclusionStudies,EFLUniversity,Hyderabad.VershaVahini&JyotiD.Sood(2011)IndianCaseLawonRighttoInformation,NewDelhi:JainBookAgency.UpendraBaxi(1979).TheIndianSupremeCourtandPolitics,EasternBookCo.Lucknow.

17. Social Diversity and Judiciary in India · · 2016-01-27Each sub-continent has its own belief...

Documents

Transcript of 17. Social Diversity and Judiciary in India · · 2016-01-27Each sub-continent has its own belief...