The Evolution of the Judiciary System in India

The judiciary stands as one of the three pillars of modern governance, but the courts we recognise today did not appear overnight. The system of robed judges, written precedents, and a layered hierarchy of courts is the product of thousands of years of evolution. From the Dharma-based justice of the Vedic age to the king as the highest judge in medieval times, and finally to the colonial reforms that created formal courts, each stage left a lasting mark. Understanding this journey helps explain why the judicial system functions the way it does and how it became the guardian of the Constitution.

Justice in ancient times 🔗

In ancient India, the idea of law was inseparable from Dharma, a concept of righteousness and moral duty drawn from the Vedas. Justice was not a purely secular exercise; it was rooted in religious and ethical norms that governed how individuals were expected to behave. Texts like the Dharmashastras, the Smritis of Narada, and Kautilya’s Arthashastra laid out detailed rules on legal procedure, evidence, and punishment. These works show that a fairly sophisticated system of administering justice existed long before any foreign influence.

The king as the fountain of justice 🔗

The sovereign was regarded as the ultimate source of justice. Dispensing justice and awarding punishment were considered among the primary duties of kingship. According to ancient texts, the king was the supreme judge whose duty was to punish wrongdoers, and failure to do so was believed to carry severe spiritual consequences. Yet the king did not act arbitrarily. He was expected to follow a strict code of conduct, take an oath of impartiality, and decide cases under the guidance of learned judges.

A notable feature of this era was that the ruler himself was bound by the law. Legal scholars have pointed out that in ancient Indian jurisprudence, the king himself was subject to the law and arbitrary power was alien to its political theory. The courts formed a clear hierarchy, with a Chief Justice known as the Pradvivaka at the top, assisted by judges called Sabhyas, and higher courts could review the decisions of lower ones.

Local and community justice 🔗

Not every dispute reached the king. In practice, only important matters were heard personally by the ruler, while most local conflicts were resolved closer to home. Village panchayats and town councils played an active role in settling disputes. During the Mauryan Empire, a systematic judiciary was developed under officials, and in the Gupta period, village panchayats resolved local conflicts while royal courts handled serious crimes. These bodies emphasised conciliation, mediation, and community welfare rather than rigid legal formalism.

The medieval period and Islamic influence 🔗

With the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire, the judicial landscape shifted. Islamic principles of law, drawn from the Sharia, were introduced. Religious scholars and judges known as Qazis were appointed in provincial capitals and important towns to conduct trials. However, the system retained a strong royal character.

In theory, rulers were expected to submit to religious law, but in practice, the king remained at the apex. As caretakers of justice, medieval rulers often subordinated the Sharia courts to their sovereign power, with the king serving as the highest court of appeals. Rulers also presided over a special court called the Mazalim, which dealt with complaints and grievances. This period reflected the personal and often unstable nature of medieval governance, where the quality of justice depended heavily on the character of the individual ruler.

The arrival of the British and the birth of formal courts 🔗

The most dramatic transformation came with the British. The East India Company, originally a trading body, gradually acquired territorial control. Its early judicial setup was scattered and disorganised, with multiple overlapping systems including traditional Indian courts, Company-appointed courts, and the Mayor’s Court at Calcutta. This confusion created a clear need for a structured legal system.

The Regulating Act of 1773 🔗

The turning point was the Regulating Act of 1773, a landmark law passed by the British Parliament to bring the Company’s affairs under parliamentary control. One of its most significant provisions concerned the judiciary. Section 13 of the Act empowered the Crown to establish a Supreme Court, and through a Royal Charter, the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Calcutta was founded in 1774.

This court consisted of a Chief Justice and three other judges, all sent from England. Sir Elijah Impey served as the first Chief Justice, and the court applied British legal principles. It marked the first time that learned judges trained in English law presided over a formal apex court on Indian soil. The court had both civil and criminal jurisdiction, though its early years were marked by controversy and jurisdictional confusion between the court and the Company’s administration.

The Company later established similar Supreme Courts in the other Presidency towns. The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were created by Royal Charters in 1800 and 1823 respectively, extending the model of English-style apex courts across British India. However, this created a problem: alongside these Crown courts ran a parallel system of Company courts known as the Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nizamat Adalat. The existence of two separate judicial systems often led to clashing and conflicting decisions.

The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 🔗

The dual system was untenable, and reform came after the upheaval of the Revolt of 1857. The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 authorised the Crown to create High Courts and consolidated the parallel legal systems of the Crown and the East India Company. Through letters patent issued in 1862, Queen Victoria established High Courts at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay.

This Act was a major step toward unifying the judiciary. It abolished the earlier Supreme Courts and the Sadar Adalats, replacing them with unified High Courts that held combined civil, criminal, and other jurisdictions in each Presidency. Each High Court could have a Chief Justice and a number of judges drawn from barristers, civil servants, and pleaders. Significantly, the Act allowed the inclusion of Indian jurists as judges, a limited but meaningful step toward the Indianisation of the bench. These High Courts became the highest courts for most cases, though appeals could still travel to the Privy Council in London.

Toward a unified apex court 🔗

Even after 1861, a gap remained. The High Courts handled provincial matters, but there was no single Indian court of final appeal below the distant Privy Council. Approaching the Privy Council in London demanded enormous expense and time, which placed justice out of reach for most litigants. The demand for a final court of appeal within India grew steadily, with reformers proposing such a court as early as the 1920s.

The Government of India Act of 1935 and the Federal Court 🔗

This demand was finally addressed through the Government of India Act of 1935, a comprehensive law that restructured the governance of British India. Among its key reforms was the establishment of a Federal Court. Acting on the recommendation of a Joint Select Committee, the Act provided for this new court, and the Federal Court of India came into being on 1 October 1937 with its seat in Delhi.

The Federal Court had original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. It held exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between the Central Government and the provinces, and it heard appeals from the High Courts in cases involving the interpretation of the 1935 Act. Sir Maurice Gwyer served as its first Chief Justice. Although its powers were limited and it functioned for only about thirteen years, the Federal Court was a crucial institutional bridge. It was, in effect, the direct precursor to the apex court that India would establish after independence.

The modern judiciary under the Constitution 🔗

Independence in 1947 and the adoption of the Constitution transformed the judicial structure entirely. The Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26 January 1950 with the coming into force of the Constitution. It replaced both the Federal Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the highest authority in the land, ending the practice of appeals travelling abroad.

The new court found its constitutional home in Article 124, with Article 124 establishing the Supreme Court and laying out the framework for its judges. The original Constitution envisaged a Chief Justice and seven other judges, leaving Parliament free to increase the number as workload grew. The court held its first sitting on 28 January 1950, with Justice Harilal J. Kania as the first Chief Justice of India. The judges initially occupied the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building, the very seat where the Federal Court had functioned since 1937.

From these beginnings, the Supreme Court grew into a powerful institution. It became the final court of appeal, the guardian of fundamental rights, and the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, armed with the power of judicial review to strike down laws and executive actions that violate constitutional provisions. The strength of the court has expanded over the decades to keep pace with a rising caseload, reflecting the growing role of the judiciary in national life.

A continuous thread of evolution 🔗

The story of the judiciary is one of continuous adaptation. Ancient ideals of impartiality and the subordination of the ruler to the law, medieval administrative structures, and the formal institutions introduced under colonial rule all fed into the system that exists today. The Regulating Act of 1773 planted the seed of a formal apex court, the High Courts Act of 1861 unified a fragmented system, and the Government of India Act of 1935 created the federal structure that the Constitution would later perfect. What began as Dharma-based justice dispensed by a king has matured into an independent, constitutionally grounded judiciary that serves as a foundation of democracy.

What do you think? Do you believe the ancient principle that even the ruler must be subject to the law has been fully realised in the modern judicial system? And how much of today’s judiciary owes its character to indigenous traditions versus the institutions inherited from the colonial period?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra
2. https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/judiciary-in-ancient-india/
3. https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/ancient-india/administration-of-justice-in-ancient-india/6268
4. https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/TheIndianJudicialSystem_SSDhavan.html
5. https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/history-of-indian-judiciary.html
6. https://www.insightsonindia.com/modern-indian-history/political-policies/regulating-act-of-1773/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Judicature_at_Fort_William
8. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/regulating-act-1773/
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_High_Courts_Act_1861
10. https://www.gktoday.in/indian-high-courts-act-1861/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_India
13. https://www.sci.gov.in/about-department/history/
14. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-124-establishment-and-constitution-of-supreme-court/