subordinate judiciary ?
Shree.
(Querist) 21 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
Is the subordinate judiciary empowered to enforce the fundamental rights?
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 22 June 2009
High Court is the protector of fundamental rights... How can you ask this for subordinate judiciary
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 22 June 2009
Ganesan, do you mean to say that the subordinate Judiciary should closed their eyes to FRs in a proceedings? yes, writ is enforce to protects FRs, but id does not mean that the subordibate judiciary should shut off the FRs in a proceedings that is before them.I am of the view that we have to make a ditrinction between enforcing FRs by way of writs and protecting and preserving FRs.is it not our duties as a citizen of India to protect the Constitution?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 22 June 2009
Mr. Assumi is correct.
it will be ridiculous to say that the subordinate judiciary is not protector of fundamental rights.
all courts in India to act with in the parameters of constitution of India....and no court can absolve or diminish or refuse to recognise FRs.
its a matter of procedure only the SC and HCs have been given power of Writ Jurisdiction to protect FRs....otherwise the civil or criminal courts or other bodies can not refuse the enforcement of FRs.
e.g. right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as SC says and the subordinate courts are to enforce it.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 22 June 2009
Each and every person (not only judicial officer) is bound to protect fundamental rights of his own or of others. If he keeps mum he violates the oath taken by every citizen towards loyalty towards the Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution constitutes an oath upon each and every PEOPLE OF INDIA.
In trend, judicial officer hesitate to enforce fundamental rights but the rights under The Constitution are civil rights and a civil court can enforce them under section 9 of CPC. No bar anywhere that a civil court shall not enforce a fundamental right.
Only bar with a lower civil court is that it can not declare any law to be ultravirous.
The remedy of writ by HC or SC is additional remedy and not ONLY REMEDY.
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
(Expert) 22 June 2009
Subject to verification, I recollect that there is a recent decision of supreme court declaring that the civil court has jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights. thus my all friends are right in substance. But I respectfully differ in procedure and I think that query of mr Shree is relating to procedure . Now let me clarify in this way-
1. A fundamental right always includes a civil right. thus a civil court has jurisdiction to enforce it as it is a suit of civil nature and not as a fundamental right enshrined under part III of the Constitution.
2. Same principle applies with respect to criminal courts as they are empowered to protect the rights under CrPC. all rights conferred under CrPC also are within purview of fundamental rights preferably under Art 14 and 21 as their object is compliance of natural justice and fair trial.
3. Enforcement of fundamental rights is specific duty of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Arts 32 and 226 which can not be exercised by lower courts.
4. Further lower judiciary is not empowered to test the constitutionality of a Law that may be void under Art. 13 of the constitution.
To be more clear, let us search the recent decision of the apex
Uma parameswaran
(Expert) 23 June 2009
The division of jurisdiction between the High Court and Subordinate Court needs to be reexamined .The protection and enforcement of FR is now only comes under High Court and supreme Court .This caused great expense and much time. By taking consideration of all existing social problems it is very much required to extend the power of High Court and Supreme Court to the Subordinate Court. But in the midst of problems such as dependency of judiciary over executive, large number of pending cases, lack of proper Court rooms and bribery, make the subordinate courts and its people to struggle hard to finish the work under the existing jurisdiction.
