Tracing the Evolution of India’s Judicial Process

India’s judicial process is not a recent invention. It is the outcome of thousands of years of legal thought, administrative experimentation, and hard-won reforms. From village councils deciding petty disputes to a 34-judge Supreme Court interpreting a written Constitution, the journey is long – and remarkably consistent in its pursuit of one goal: justice. Understanding where this system came from helps explain why it works the way it does today.

Ancient India: Dharma as the foundation of law 🔗

The story begins well before courts had physical buildings. In ancient India, the concept of justice was inseparable from Dharma – a Sanskrit term broadly meaning righteous conduct and moral duty. The Vedas provided the earliest articulation of behavioral norms, which were later codified into Dharmasutras and, over the first seven centuries CE, into a fuller body of legal texts known as Dharmasastras. Key among these were the Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Narada Smriti, along with Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which addressed legal procedure and governance in considerable detail.

What makes ancient Indian jurisprudence particularly notable is that it was not static. As the Manusmriti itself acknowledges, laws were expected to change with the times – “the laws of each age being according to the distinctive character of each age.” According to scholars of ancient Indian law, by gearing legal decisions to prevailing customs, Indian jurisprudence gave law a secular dimension even while it remained rooted in Dharma.

The court hierarchy in ancient India 🔗

Ancient texts such as Brihaspati Smriti describe a structured court hierarchy that began with the family arbitrator at the base and extended upward to the Praadvivaka (Chief Justice’s Court) and then to the King’s Court as the highest authority. At the village level, Kulani – councils similar to modern Panchayats – resolved local disputes. Courts were organized in tiers corresponding to population clusters: one for every ten villages, then for every 200, 400, and 800 villages, with circuit courts operating at district junctions. This is remarkably close to the district court system India uses today.

The King was not above the law. Ancient Indian jurisprudence held that a king’s right to govern depended on fulfilling his duties – a breach could result in forfeiture of kingship. Judges were expected to be independent and subject only to the law. The emphasis on honesty in proceedings was also recorded by foreign travellers; the Greek ambassador Megasthenes noted that Indians held truth in high esteem, a culture that shaped judicial conduct over centuries.

The medieval period: Islamic law under the Sultanate and Mughals 🔗

With the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century and the Mughal Empire from 1526 CE onwards, a new legal framework entered India. The Mughal emperors set up a dedicated justice department called Mahakuma-e-Adalat, with the Emperor positioned as the supreme authority and final court of appeal. The legal foundation shifted to Islamic jurisprudence, primarily drawn from the Quran, and administered through a network of Qazis – judges appointed at the village, district, provincial, and imperial levels.

The Qazi system: structure and reach 🔗

At the apex of this hierarchy was the Qazi-ul-Quzat, or Chief Justice, appointed directly by the emperor. Provincial Qazis oversaw justice at the subah (province) level, while District Qazis handled routine civil and criminal matters. Even small towns and larger villages had their own Qazis. On appointment, a Qazi was formally charged to be just, honest, and impartial – instructed not to accept gifts from the communities they served.

One significant feature of the Mughal system was its pragmatic accommodation of legal diversity. While Islamic law formed the foundation, the Mughals recognized that uniformly imposing it across a religiously diverse empire was impractical. Hindu parties continued to have their disputes resolved under Dharmashastra principles. The Qazi’s court was also designed for accessibility – proceedings were conducted in local languages and the emphasis was on prompt resolution.

Another notable development from this period was the emergence of Vakils – legal professionals who represented clients in court. This professional class of legal representatives marks an early precedent for what would eventually become the modern legal profession. The Mughal system also introduced procedural safeguards: Emperor Aurangzeb, for instance, issued a directive requiring written authorization from a Qazi before an accused could be taken into custody – an early form of arrest regulation.

The Mughal judicial legacy extends beyond history. Much of modern Indian legal terminology is borrowed from this era: civil courts of first instance are still called Munsifs, and the terms Muddai (plaintiff) and Muddaliya (defendant) remain in use.

British colonial rule: codification and the common law system 🔗

The arrival of the British East India Company marked a decisive turn. Initially, Company officials with no formal legal training administered justice. But as British control expanded, a more structured system was introduced. In 1772, Warren Hastings introduced a dual system – Moffussil Diwani Adalats for civil disputes and Faujdari Adalats for criminal cases – with the Collector acting as the presiding judge in civil matters. This was an early but significant step toward separating judicial and administrative functions.

Establishing formal courts 🔗

The Regulating Act of 1773 established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, the first formal court with trained judges operating under English law in India. The Supreme Court in Calcutta, established in 1774, marked the beginning of a formalized judiciary separate from the executive and legislature. Similar courts were subsequently established in Bombay (1800) and Madras (1823).

The year 1861 brought a landmark reform. The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 abolished the earlier Supreme Courts and replaced them with unified High Courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. These courts combined both original and appellate jurisdiction. Around the same time, the Law Commission under Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted the Indian Penal Code (1860), the Code of Criminal Procedure (1861), and later the Indian Evidence Act (1872). These statutes, based on English common law but adapted to India, became the backbone of the criminal justice system – many of their core principles survived well into the 21st century.

The path to separation of powers 🔗

The Government of India Act, 1919 introduced the principle of separating judicial from executive functions. The Government of India Act, 1935 went further, establishing the Federal Court of India – a precursor to the Supreme Court – with jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The Sapru Committee (1945) recommended fixed salaries and tenures for judges, and their removal only for gross misconduct – principles that directly shaped the post-independence constitutional framework.

Post-independence: a constitutional judiciary 🔗

When India became a republic on 26 January 1950, the Constitution came into force and with it, a completely restructured judiciary. The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on 28 January 1950, two days after the republic was declared, taking over from the Federal Court in the Chamber of Princes in Parliament House. The original bench had a Chief Justice and seven judges – a number that has grown to 34 today as workload expanded.

Constitutional safeguards for independence 🔗

The Constitution granted all citizens Fundamental Rights and empowered the judiciary to strike down any legislation or executive action that violated these rights. Article 50 explicitly required the state to separate the judiciary from the executive. Judges of the Supreme Court could be removed only through a two-thirds majority in Parliament on grounds of proven misconduct – a deliberately high bar designed to insulate the courts from political pressure.

The structure established was a single, integrated judiciary: the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts in each state, then District Courts, and below them, subordinate courts. Village-level Panchayat Courts and Lok Adalats also exist to provide accessible dispute resolution at the grassroots. Unlike the United States, where federal and state courts operate largely in parallel, India maintains a single hierarchical system in which all cases – whether involving Union or state law – move up the same chain of appeals.

Landmark judgments and judicial activism 🔗

The post-independence judiciary did not remain passive. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution – including judicial independence itself – could not be amended even by Parliament, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine. The rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opened the courts to ordinary citizens, allowing advocacy groups and individuals to bring systemic issues directly before the Supreme Court. This transformed the judiciary from a dispute-settlement body into an active participant in social reform.

The thread connecting ancient to modern 🔗

Looking at the arc of India’s judicial history, a few consistent values emerge. The emphasis on fairness and accessibility – from the ancient village Kulani to modern Gram Nyayalayas – has never fully disappeared. The hierarchical court structure, with a supreme authority at the top reviewing decisions from lower courts, was present in both Kautilya’s Arthashastra and the 1950 Constitution. The idea that even the highest authority is bound by law – whether Dharma, Sharia, or a written Constitution – runs through all three major legal traditions that shaped India.

As legal historians have observed, India’s modern court hierarchy – with village courts at the base, district courts in the middle, High Courts in the states, and the Supreme Court at the apex – mirrors the tiered structure described in ancient texts, though few who work within it today are consciously aware of the continuity. That continuity, across millennia and across fundamentally different political orders, is what makes the history of India’s judicial process both remarkable and worth understanding.

What do you think? Given that India’s modern court hierarchy closely mirrors the tiered structure described in texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra, does that suggest continuity in legal thinking – or is the resemblance coincidental? And considering that the Mughal system maintained separate personal laws for Hindus and Muslims, how does that legacy continue to shape debates around a Uniform Civil Code in India today?

References

1. https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/judiciary-in-ancient-india/
2. https://allahabadhighcourt.in/event/TheIndianJudicialSystem_SSDhavan.html
3. https://ijesrr.org/publication/50/1.%20dec%202017%20ijesrr.pdf
4. https://www.clearias.com/history-of-indian-judiciary/
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-system-time-mughals-india/
6. https://banotes.org/admin-system-union-level/judicial-practices-legal-framework-mughal-empire/
7. https://pubadmin.institute/administrative-system-at-union-level/judicial-administration-mughal-empire-justice
8. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LAW-AND-ORDER-IN-THE-MUGHAL-EMPIRE-INSIGHTS-INTO-JUSTICE-ADMINISTRATION.pdf
9. https://southasiajournal.net/judicial-system-of-mughal-and-british-india/
10. https://sociology.institute/india-democracy-development/evolution-indian-judiciary-ancient-modern-times/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India
12. https://www.sci.gov.in/about-department/history/
13. https://www.sci.gov.in/constitution/
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India