Table of Contents

The Judicial Method in legal research is a traditional doctrinal method that focuses on analysing judicial precedents, court opinions, and case law. Rather than evaluating statutes in isolation, it examines the intellectual process of how judges interpret text, exercise judicial discretion, and employ methods of logic, history, or sociology to develop legal principles and resolve gaps in the law.

Judicial Process Models

  1. Adversarial system

This system, commonly used in India, involves two opposing parties presenting their cases to an impartial judge, who then makes a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented.

The key aim of the adversary system is to ensure fairness between both the Defence and the Prosecution throughout the trial process.

  1. Inquisitorial system

The inquisitorial system is characterised by the active role of the judge, who takes charge of the investigation, gathers evidence, and questions witnesses. The judge leads the trial and has considerable discretion over the proceedings. This system is based on the idea that the court, rather than the parties, should be responsible for discovering the truth.

  1. Hybrid Legal System

This is the one where the legal system is influenced by both civil and/or common law system, and/or also influenced by customary and/or religious legal system.

Key Judicial Methods and Concepts

  1. Judicial Review

Judicial review is a court's power to examine the constitutionality of legislative or executive actions and strike them down if they violate the law.

  1. Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a proactive judicial philosophy where judges use their rulings to shape social and political policy, often stepping in to fill legislative or governance gaps.

  1. Judicial Interpretation

This involves judges understanding and applying the meaning of laws to specific cases, shaping the development of legal principles.

  1. Precedent

Past court decisions serve as precedents, meaning that future cases with similar facts should be decided in a similar way. The legal principle of using past decisions to guide future ones is known as stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by things decided"). It is designed to ensure fairness, consistency, and predictability in the legal system.

  1. Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the term used to describe ways of resolving a dispute without having to go to court.

ADR comprises of following methods:

  1. Mediation - Mediation involves the intervention of a third person, or mediator, into a dispute to assist the parties in negotiating jointly acceptable resolution of issues in conflict. The mediator meets with the parties at a neutral location where the parties can discuss the dispute and explore a variety of solutions.
  2. Arbitration - Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute. The third party, which is neutral, renders the decision in the form of an ‘Arbitration Award’.
  3. Conciliation - Conciliation is an option out-of-court dispute resolution instrument whereby the parties to a dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties both separately and together in an attempt to resolve their differences. A neutral Conciliator assists each of the parties to independently develop a list of all of their objectives and reach a settlement, the terms of which are mutually acceptable. The decision is not binding.

Difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Feature

Judicial Review

Judicial Activism

Definition

The power of courts to examine laws, executive actions, and government decisions and invalidate them if they violate the Constitution.

A judicial approach in which courts interpret the Constitution or laws expansively and play an active role in shaping public policy or protecting rights.

Nature

Generally reactive: courts act when a dispute is brought before them.

More proactive: courts may adopt innovative remedies, broaden standing rules, or intervene in areas traditionally left to other branches.

Scope

Focused on determining constitutionality and legality of governmental actions.

Broader interpretation of constitutional provisions to address social, political, or governance issues.

Basis

Rooted directly in specific constitutional provisions and statutory authority.

Based on judicial interpretation and philosophy rather than explicit constitutional text.

Goal

To uphold the rule of law and maintain the separation of powers.

To correct institutional failures, protect rights, and fill gaps in governance.

Hierarchy of Courts in India

The judicial structure in India is as follows:

  1. Supreme Court - The highest court in India; final court of appeal. Its decisions are binding on all other courts and tribunals in India (Art. 141).
  2. High Courts - State-level courts with broad jurisdiction, including the power to issue writs. Decisions are binding on subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction. These are the highest courts at the state level.
  3. District and Sessions Courts - Principal courts at the district level, headed by the District Judge/Sessions Judge and exercising both original and appellate jurisdiction.
  4. Subordinate Courts - Courts below the district courts.