Abstract

The majority of current legal scholarship regarding India is directed primarily at Constitutional Case Law and Appellate Courts, yet this article will provide an alternative lens to view the judiciary by providing insight into the Trial Court System; where the vast majority of litigants first interact with the judicial system.

This article is based on non-participant Ethnographic Observation of a District Civil and Sessions Court for a total of three weeks. In addition to using the institutional framework of the Trial Courts, this study will examine these Courts as existing social institutions that have been shaped and developed by the acts, interaction and arrangement of material resources throughout the daily routines of those who use or work in them.

The way "law" is created, understood and imposed in the Court Room is very much a part of how authority is delivered, and performed on a Treated-like-Daily basis. By looking through the lens of Pierre Bourdieu's account of the 'juridical field', Max Weber's view of legal-rational authority, and Ewick and Silbey's discussion on legal consciousness, it will be demonstrated that "court proceedings" exist as an entity of "Social Performance."

Legal language, spatial design, forms of Address, and everyday advice and information, provide a set of Structures that will affect a litigant's ability to job; especially for Litigants that may only be coming into the Court once and are not knowledgeable about Court procedures. For most litigants coming from rural or socially disadvantaged areas, the Court becomes an intimidating and Foreign environment, which will present as a barrier to those litigants attempting to become involved in the Court system and exercising their Rights.

Abstract

Victim Compensation, support provided to the person who fell victim to crimes mentioned in the legal texts of India such as Indian Penal Code (now BNS), Code for Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) etc. The said support may be medical or psychological, but mainly its financial. This paper elucidates who is actually a victim and what does victim compensation mean and how it works in the Indian context. It sheds light upon how it has historically evolved, and with forthcomings of mandatory laws and schemes, the current standing of compensations in different parts of the nation. It talks about NALSA, Section 357A of CrPC, Victim Compensation Scheme as landmarks and mandatory actions. The aforementioned research explains the after effects of various heinous crimes, not only on victims, but also their families. In situations like such, victim compensation provides a safety net for those who are affected. The study mentions the ways through which one can apply for victim compensation, for example : platforms like DLSA and Central Victim Compensation Fund (in cases of rape; came into effect after Nirbhaya case). Furthermore, the research points towards the inconsistencies of NALSA and VCS in reality as compared to papers and documents. CVCF comes into play to correct these inconsistencies but its reach is also limited. Lastly the paper critically examines the situation of victims and their compensation's effectiveness. It highlights both positives and negatives of victim compensation in India. Therefore, by recognising the needs of victims through the steps of victim compensation, this research evaluates how the justice system moves towards prioritising accountability of state and healing processes. The research has used numerous official reference sites (may it be government reports or newspaper articles), all listed at the bottom of the document.  

Abstract

The judiciary serves as the cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy, entrusted with safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. The recent incident involving an attempted assault on Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai constitutes not merely a personal attack but a serious challenge to judicial independence and institutional authority. This article examines the constitutional and legal dimensions of such acts, focusing on the limits of free speech under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2), the application of contempt jurisdiction, and the judiciary’s powers to preserve court decorum. It further analyses the role of constitutional safeguards, including the collegium system, in protecting judicial autonomy from external influence, as reaffirmed by landmark judicial precedents. The article also explores broader socio-political undercurrents, including religious sentiment and caste dynamics, that may inform public hostility toward judicial institutions. Ultimately, the article underscores the imperative of preserving judicial independence as a basic feature of the Constitution to ensure democratic stability, institutional respect, and the effective administration of justice in India.