Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16


Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous co-
operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words
is beyond the domain of my lexicon.
This project wouldnt have been possible without the help of my teacher Dr.Hanumanth
yadav, Faculty, Dept. of Sociology at HNLU, who had always been there at my side
whenever I needed some help regarding any information. She has been my mentor in the
truest sense of the term. The administration has also been kind enough to let me use their
facilities for research work. I thank them for this.


Objectives of study.......5
Research Methodology.5
review of literature................................................6
historical background...........................7
Present Scenario.....................................................................8
Steps By Government.................................................9
Challenges And Suggestions................. ...10



No government can live and flourish without having as part of its system of administration of
civil affairs some permanent human force, invested with acknowledged and supreme
authority, and always in a position to exercise it promptly and efficiently, in case of need, on
any proper call. It must be permanent in its character. Only what is permanent will have the
confidence of the people. It must always be ready to act on the instant. The unexpected is
continually happening, and it is emergencies that put governments to the test.

The judiciary holds this position in the United States. The institutions which underlie and
characterize it, both of the United States and of each of the States, considered by itself,
[Footnote: I do not except Louisiana, for trial by jury and other institutions derived from the
common law haveprofoundly affected her whole judicial system.] 1are the outgrowth
of those of the thirteen English colonies on the Atlantic coast,
which declared their independence in 1776.

The United States is renowned for having one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in
the world. Every day thousands of people, including law enforcement officers, lawyers,
judges, government officials and even accused criminals, take part in this system, hoping to
settle disputes and work for justice. What makes this system even more remarkable is that it
is able to operate successfully in a country as large and diverse as the United States. One of
the keys to this success is a balanced and carefully ordered hierarchy: Several different
federal courts control issues relating to federal law and each state has its own set of courts
that can adapt to the needs of its people.

Of course, its all a bit more complicated than that and no system works perfectly, but
learning how the judicial system works can be useful in case you ever need to file a law suit,
defend yourself in court, claim damages from the government or even pay a traffic ticket. In
this article well talk about what the different types of courts do, how judges are appointed
and the basics of jury duty. Lets start by looking at the essential elements of the U.S. judicial

Objectives of Study

1 I do not except Louisiana, for trial by jury and other institutions derived from the common law
have profoundly affected her whole judicial system.

The broad objective of the study is to study the impact of trade liberalisation on economic
development of India . The specific objectives or the interrelated objectives of the study are
as follows:

I. To study Trade reform of 1991

II. To study Effect of trade liberalisation on economic development
III. To study Role of trade policy in different sectors
IV. To analyze growth rate of Indian economy

Methodology of the Study

This research work is descriptive and analytical in nature .It analyse the impact of trade
policy on economic development of India .


The Federal Court System

The Constitution grants Congress power to create and abolish federal courts, although the
United States Supreme Court is the only court that cannot be abolished. Congress also has the
authority to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary system.

In general, federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions and criminal cases dealing with
federal law. Jurisdiction can overlap, and certain cases which that may be heard in federal
court can instead be heard in state court. Federal courts can only interpret the law in the
context of deciding a dispute. A court cannot approach an issue on its own or in a
hypothetical context.

Federal judges, with a few exceptions, are appointed for life -- until they die, retire or resign.
The Constitution calls for federal judges to act with good behavior, and they can be
impeached for improper or criminal conduct. A strict code of conduct exists for federal
judges, guiding their behavior. Many judges are also considered scholars in their field and
spend time speaking, working in the community, teaching or writing in legal journals. Judges
who retire, known as senior judges, may be called up on a full- or part-time basis to help
with cases. Senior judges handle 15 percent to 20 percent of the workload for appellate and
district courts.

Appointed by the President, federal judges are confirmed by the Senate and have their pay
determined by Congress. Most federal judges make about the same amount as members of
Congress ($150,000 or more), though like some members of Congress, many federal judges
have previous experience in more lucrative positions with large law firms. The Constitution
doesnt actually require that judges are lawyers, but so far all federal judges have been
members of the Bartrained lawyers.

Each federal court has a chief judge who handles some administrative responsibilities in
addition to his or her regular duties. The chief judge is usually the judge who has served on
that court the longest. Chief justices for district and appeals courts must be under age 65 and
may serve as chief judge for seven years but not beyond age 70.Each court also has its own
staff of employees, including court reporters, clerks and assistants, who are vital to the
operation of the court. A courts primary administrative officer is the Clerk of the Court,
who maintains records, is responsible for the courts finances, provides support services,
sends official notices and summons, administers the jury system and manages interpreters
and court reporters.

The federal court system has three levels: district courts, courts of appeals, and the
Supreme Court.

Source: Boundless. Types of Courts. Boundless Political Science Boundless, 02 Aug. 2016.
Retrieved 10 Feb. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/political-
The federal court system is divided into three levels: the first and lowest level is the United
States district courts, the second, intermediate level is the court of appeals, and the Supreme
Court is considered the highest court in the United States.

The United States district courts are the general federal trial courts, although in many cases
Congress has passed statutes which divert original jurisdiction to these specialized courts or
to administrative law judges (ALJs). In these cases, the district courts have jurisdiction to
hear appeals from such lower bodies.

The United States courts of appeals are the federal intermediate appellate courts. They
operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals of right
from the lower courts. They can make a ruling of their own on the case, or choose to accept
the decision of the lower court. In the latter case, many defendants appeal to the Supreme

The highest court is the Supreme Court of the United States, which is considered the court of
last resort . It generally is an appellate court that operates under discretionary review. This
means that the Court, through granting of writs of certiorari, can choose which cases to hear.
There is generally no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. In a few situations, like lawsuits
between state governments or some cases between the federal government and a state, the
Supreme Court becomes the court of original jurisdiction. In addition, the Constitution
specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting
ambassadors and other diplomats, in cases in which a state is a party, and cases between the
state and another country. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate
jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases
are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases
heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states. Such cases are generally referred
to a designated individual, usually a sitting or retired judge, or a well-respected attorney, to sit
as a special master and report to the Court with recommendations.

Source: Boundless. Types of Courts. Boundless Political Science Boundless, 02
Aug. 2016. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/political-

Types of Jurisdiction

Earlier in this article, we introduced the notion of jurisdiction. All courts have two types of
jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Lets go over how these
types of jurisdiction work for federal courts.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the area of law over which a court has authority. There
are two subsets of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts can decide cases involving disputes under federal law, the U.S. government,
conflicts between states or between the U.S. and foreign governments. The case has to raise a
federal question in order to be heard in federal court.

Diversity Jurisdiction

A case can be filed in federal court because of a diversity of citizenship of the parties
involved, meaning that the case involves citizens of different states. Only cases involving
more than $75,000 can be filed in federal court, and any diversity jurisdiction case can also
be brought in a state court.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the question of whether a court has authority over an individual or
business entity. For example, a court in Vermont cannot make a California resident come to
Vermont to defend a lawsuit if hes never had contact with that state -- either by going to that
state, having contact with someone in that state, selling something to a Vermont resident, etc.
Similarly, foreigners cant be made to come to U.S. courts unless the foreigner has had
contacts with people in the U.S. relating to the case.

Generally, corporations are treated like individuals in federal and state courts. They can sue
and be sued. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, there are also rules that determine of
which state a corporation is a citizen.

Now that weve gone over some of the basics of federal courts and judges, lets look at the
different types of courts, starting with the most important of them all, the Supreme Court of
the United States.

The Supreme Court of US

The Supreme Court, which is the only court explicitly created by the Constitution, is the most
powerful court in the United States. The Court has nine justices and its decisions cannot be
appealed to any other court. For that reason, the Supreme Court is an incredibly powerful and
important body, and a nomination of a new justice is an event that attracts significant media
attention, debate and even controversy.

Thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court every year, but the Court only hears 100
to 150 cases a year. Most cases require the Court to interpret an existing law, the intent of
Congress when passing legislation, or whether legislation or acts by the Executive are
constitutional. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign
dignitaries or when the state is a party, meaning that those cases must first be filed in the
Supreme Court but may later be passed down to a lower court. All other cases reach the Court
on appeal from lower courts.

Although Congress has the right to decide how many judges are on the Supreme Court, it
cant change the powers given to the Court by the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789
established the Court with one chief justice and five associate justices. Between 1789 and

1869, the number of justices on the Court changed six times but has remained at nine (eight
associate justices and one chief justice) since 1869.

The Chief Justice is the executive officer of the Court but, like the other justices, has only
one vote in deciding cases. In order to decide a case, six justices must vote and a simple
majority is all thats required. When a decision isnt unanimous, the Court issues majority
and minority (or dissenting) opinions. Justices often write separate concurring opinions if
they agree with the majority but for different reasons.

An opinion is a document that details the justices arguments and the reasons behind their
decisions. These documents can also contain decisions about the constitutionality of a law or
their beliefs about how a law should be interpreted. Opinions comprise a very important part
of whats known as case law, the law created by judges written opinions. Case law and
precedent set by the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts. They are also used as a
guide in the crafting of future legislation by Congress and as case studies by law school
students and legal scholars.

One of the most important court opinions came in an 1803 case called Marbury v. Madison.
Chief Justice John Marshall issued the majority opinion for this case, which established the
concept known as judicial review. Although not specified in the Constitution, Chief Justice
Marshall used the case as an opportunity to declare that a legislative act contrary to the
Constitution is not law and that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is [ref]. In this way, he greatly expanded the powers of the
Supreme Court.

Judicial review has also been used to cover state and local governments. The Court can
declare their actions unconstitutional and thereby order them to cease the action in question.
The most famous example of judicial review is the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of
Education. In that case, the Supreme Court declared the Topeka, Kansas school boards
segregation of schools unconstitutional. The decision became part of case law and caused all
other segregation laws across the country to be declared unconstitutional.

Appeals Courts

There are 12 regional Circuit Court of Appeals and one U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. Created in 1891, the number of judges on each court varies from six to 28, but most
have 10 to 15. Each court has the power to review decisions of district courts in its region.
Appeals Courts, sometimes called appellate courts, can also review orders of independent
regulatory agencies if a dispute remains after the agencies internal review processes have
been exhausted.

Appeal Process

A defendant who is found guilty by a criminal court can appeal the ruling to have the case
heard by the Court of Appeals. Either side may appeal in a civil case. When the Court of
Appeals hears a case, the person appealing the case, called the appellant, must show that the
trial court made a legal error that affected the outcome of the case. Each side presents its
argument in written documents called briefs to a panel of three judges. The court bases its
decision on the record of the case and does not solicit new testimony or evidence. Some
panels also allow for short oral arguments.

The courts decision is final unless the case is sent back to the trial court. Someone who loses
in Appeals Court can petition for a writ of certiorari, an official request for the Supreme
Court to review the case. The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case but generally
will if multiple appellate courts have interpreted the law differently, if an important legal
principle is at stake, if the case presents an issue relating to how the Constitution is
interpreted or if multiple appellate courts have interpreted the law differently.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has national jurisdiction for appeals in
specialized cases, for example, patent laws or cases decided by courts of special jurisdiction,
the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are panels made up of three judges that hear appeals of
bankruptcy court decisions. Considered a unit of the Federal Court of Appeals, BAPs were
created and modified by the Bankruptcy Reform Acts of 1978 and 1994. Appellants can
appeal decisions by bankruptcy courts with the BAP or a District Court. The following
circuits have BAPs: 1st, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.

District Courts
One step below the Court of Appeals is the District Court. Each of the 94 districts has at least
two judges; the biggest districts have 24 or more. Each district also has a U.S. bankruptcy
court. District Courts are the trial courts of the federal system. Their criminal cases concern
federal offenses, and their civil cases deal with matters of federal law or disputes between
citizens of different states (remember subject matter jurisdiction). Theyre also the only
federal courts where grand juries indict the accused and juries decide the cases.

Congress determines the court districts based on size, population and case load. Some states
have their own district while New York, California and Texas each have four. Judges have to
live in the district they serve -- the District of Columbia is the lone exception -- but a judge
may temporarily sit in another district to help with a heavy case load.

Magistrate Judges

Magistrate Judges are appointed by District Judges to serve an eight-year term in a U.S.
District Court. Part-time magistrates serve four-year terms. This system was started in 1968
to help District Courts with their caseloads. Both parties involved in a case have to agree to
be heard by a Magistrate Judge instead of a District Judge. Magistrate Judges also conduct
initial proceedings for cases such as issuing warrants, bail hearings, appointing attorneys and
reviewing petitions and motions.

A Grand Jury

When a U.S. attorney is considering charging someone with a federal crime, he or she
convenes a grand jury, made up of 16 to 23 citizens. The grand jury convenes, along with
government lawyers, court reporters, interpreters (if necessary) and witnesses, and determines
if theres enough evidence to indict someone, if theres probable cause that the suspect
committed the crime.

Special Courts

Congress has the power to set up special legislative courts whose judges are appointed for
life terms by the President and approved by the Senate. Today, there are two special trial
courts with national jurisdiction.

The United States Court of International Trade

The U.S. Court of International Trade deals with cases involving international trade and
customs. Previously called the United States Customs Court, the court was expanded and its
name changed by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The courtrooms and offices are in New
York City, but the Court is also authorized to hold hearings in foreign countries. Appeals of
its decisions can be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and then to the
Supreme Court. The judges of the Court of International Trade are sometimes assigned by the
chief judge to preside over cases in other parts of the country and like other federal judges,
theyre appointed for life.

United States Court of Federal Claims

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims calls itself the Peoples Court and deals with most claims
for money damages against the U.S. government, disputes over federal contracts, unlawful
seizure of private property by the government and other similar claims. The Court began in
1855 as a body that advised Congress on claims against the United States, but in 1863, it
became a forum for citizens to file claims against the government. Sixteen judges sit on the
Court, and each serves a 15-year term.

Other Courts

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

U.S. Tax Court

U.S. Court of Military Appeals

Military Courts of Review

State Courts and Jury Duty
Although federal courts are the most powerful courts in the United States and play an
essential role in shaping judicial policy and practice, state courts do much of the grunt work
that keeps our judicial system running. Theyre also the courts that Americans are most likely
to have contact with in their lives.

There are two types of trial courts in most states: special jurisdiction and general

Special jurisdiction courts, which also can be called county, district, justice, justice of the
peace, magistrate or police courts, hear the following types of cases:

juvenile cases

lesser civil and criminal cases

traffic-related cases

General jurisdiction courts, which also can be called circuit courts, court of common pleas,
superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court, hear serious civil and
criminal cases. All states also have their own appellate courts and a state supreme court. (The
62 trial courts in New York are called Supreme Courts, and the state's highest court is the
New York Court of Appeals.)Most states have two types of trial courts: special jurisdiction
and general jurisdiction. Special jurisdiction courts hear many traffic violation cases, minor
civil disputes, juvenile cases and lesser criminal cases. They are sometimes called district,
justice, county, justice of the peace, magistrate or police courts. General jurisdiction courts
hear serious criminal and civil cases. General jurisdiction courts are also called circuit courts,
court of common pleas, superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court. All
states also have their own appellate courts and a state supreme court. (The 62 trial courts in
New York are called Supreme Courts, and the state's highest court is the New York Court of

State courts have a variety of systems for how judges attain their positions -- some are
appointed by governors, others are elected and have to periodically face reelection. For more
information about your state court, check out the National Center for State Courts listing of
state court Web sites.

Jury Duty

Jury duty: its been a bad Pauly Shore movie and a source of confusion for millions of
Americans. But jury duty is also an essential part of our judicial system. If citizens didnt
give up some of their time to serve on juries, conducting fair trials would be almost
impossible. Lets look for a moment at how juries work.

As we learned earlier in the article, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals do not
use juries. But Federal District Courts, the trial courts of the federal judiciary, do. State trial
courts also depend on jurors, who are randomly selected from a pool of registered voters and
people with drivers licenses to ensure a cross-section of the population. Being selected in
this way is known as being summoned. A summoned juror must complete a questionnaire to
determine if there is any reason that he or she can be disqualified from serving.

Being summoned for jury duty does not mean you willA summoned juror wont
automatically have to serve on a jury. However, you he or she will likely have to go to the
courthouse and undergo a process called voir dire, where judges and lawyers question
potential jurors to determine if theyre fit to serve. People with past experience with the
alleged crime, knowledge of either party or who have obvious prejudices may be prevented
from serving. Lawyers can also exclude some jurors without giving a reason.

There are two types of juries on which private citizens may be called to serve. A trial jury,
also known as a petit jury, is made up of six to 12 people for a civil trial and 12 people for a
criminal trial. A grand jury, as discussed earlier in the article, is a panel of 16 to 23 people
who determine whether theres probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Precedent and Stare Decisis

When issuing decisions, all courts must follow binding precedent -- that is their decisions
must follow any rulings made by courts above them. On questions of the interpretation of the
United States Constitution and statutes passed by Congress, the United States Supreme Court
has the final say. All other courts, both federal and state, must follow any precedent set by
the Supreme Court.

All United States District Courts must follow the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal
for the circuit in which it sits. Sometimes, different circuits reach contradictory results on a
particular issue. This means that the Constitution may occasionally be interpreted differently
in different states. Often, such a split in the circuits prompts the Supreme Court to grant
certiorari on the issue involved, so that the law will be uniform throughout the country.

State courts are bound to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court and by the Courts of
Appeals on issues of federal law, but not as to state law. Each state supreme court is free to
interpret the laws of its state as it sees fit, as long as the interpretation does not violate the
United States Constitution. All lower courts in the state must follow state supreme court
precedent on issues of state law, and federal courts in the state must do likewise.

The doctrine of stare decisis is somewhat different than that of precedent. Stare decisis is the
desire of most courts to follow their own precedent, even when they are not required to. For
example, once the Supreme Court has decided an issue of federal law, they are free to change
their mind in some later case. But they are normally quite reluctant to do so, even if there has
been a change of justices on the Court and the new members do not agree with the old ruling.
They are much more likely to distinguish the older case when asked to apply it in a slightly
different situation. In this way, the older doctrine may change, but more gradually, over time.

The Supreme Court has the power to and does occasionally completely reverse an existing
precedent. Although they can do so both as to statutory and constitutional issues, they often
state that they are less likely to do so in matters of statutory construction. This is because if
Congress disagrees with the Courts interpretation of a statute, it may amend the law to
change the result. If the Supreme Court feels strongly, however, that they have
misinterpreted the Constitution, only they can change the result, unless the difficult
cumbersome process of amending the Constitution is used. Such complete reversals,
however, are quite rare.