Global Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

An Analytical Study of Judicial System in India

James Jian^* Department of Finance, College of Business and Public Administration, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
^*Correspondence: James Jian, Department of Finance, College of Business and Public Administration, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, Email:

Received: 02-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. GJISS-22-18448; Editor assigned: 05-Sep-2022, Pre QC No. GJISS-22-18448 (PQ); Reviewed: 20-Sep-2022, QC No. GJISS-22-18448; Revised: 26-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. GJISS-22-18448 (R); Published: 04-Oct-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2319-8834.22.11.032

Description

A significant part of the regulation of law depends on respecting the rule, meeting legal requirements and ensuring that appropriate sanctions are imposed when violations occur. In a democracy, individual magistrates and the entire judiciary must be neutral and sovereign of all exterior heaviness. This ensures that those who go to court with the common community have confidence that their illustrations will be resolved impartially as well as in agreement by the regulation. The model or legal tradition of the national legal system, embodied in it, is that selfgovernment, quality and efficiency are the parameters and assurances necessary for an effective legal system. Measuring the impact of the justice system is not an easy task. Effectual impartiality schemes have to therefore consider three important things, the excellence of the justice scheme, its sovereignty, plus the competence through which it function.

Every judicial system, no matter where in the world and no matter how well performing, has occasions where parties before the court are denied fair treatment, whether for reason of judicial dishonesty or undue-influence upon judicial decision making. Globally it is become conscious that this all phenomenon is due to the lack of judicial responsibility towards the legal system, and towards the general public. All this is because in the name of judicial self-government, magistrates are ashamed of not examining its presentation as well as the behavior of its associates. Legal responsibility as an idea has been much discussed but it’s extremely hard to describe in exact terms. As Lord Hailsham thought in his Lionel Cohen address, "there is a continuous tension between judicial self-government and public responsibility of magistrates in a democracy.

If the law is administered badly, the taste of salt is lost, the lamp of justice is darkened when it is extinguished”, that is why a measure of the superiority of justice in a country is the superiority of the government. Thus, judicial responsibility like the sovereignty of the magistrates is one of the chief components of the regulation of law. It is in this light researcher tries to know as well as be grateful for the concept of legal responsibility and analyses of its core values in the broader spectrum a responsible judicial system in every national frameworks includes wisdom of regulation of law, community assurance in court, legal efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility, legal transparency and legitimate guarantees of legal sovereignty. The set of guidelines of judicial responsibility conceptualized the required for capable, sovereign, transparent magistrates as an organization has been predictable along with conventional. Recent studies on judicial system suggest that appraisal of excellence of legal scheme should judge minimally on five aspects of legal presentation: self-government, responsibility, efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility. The word ‘responsibility’ is defined in Oxford dictionary and the meaning is that ‘responsible for your own choice or proceedings with predictable to give details them when you are asked’.

Conclusion

Simply, it means that one who will be held responsible for his work or duty or action or decision and even would be expected to give the explanation about his action that has been performed by him. Judicial responsibility is an expression which defies definition. This is a developed concept, the exact parameters of which have not been determined. Wherever legal responsibility is mentioned in the literature, it is not largely defined but attempted to make sense. It can be said that it has values related to the jurisdiction of the magistrates in relation to admission to impartiality and distribution of justice. The goals of judicial responsibility are to guarantee high norms of necessary leadership and open acknowledgment of judicial choices.