Judiciary: Structure And Hierarchy Of Courts, And Legal Offices In India

Structure & Hierarchy of Courts in India
The Constitution of India lays out the framework of the Indian judicial system. India has adopted a federal system of government which distributes the law enacting power between the Centre and the States. Yet the Constitution establishes a single integrated system of judiciary comprising of courts to administer both Central and State laws. The Supreme Court located in New Delhi is the apex court of India. It is followed by various High Courts at the state level which function for one or more number of states. 

The High Courts are followed by district and subordinate courts which are known as the lower courts in India. To supplement the functioning of the courts, there exist specialised tribunals to adjudicate sector specific claims such as labour, consumer, service matter disputes.

Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January,1950. It replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which were at the apex of the Indian court system, under the colonial era. The Constitution of India as it stood in 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 Judges. The Parliament was granted the power to increase the number of judges in the coming years. At present, the total strength of the Supreme Court is 34 judges including the Chief Justice of India. A group of judges sitting together on a legal matter in the Court constitutes a bench. A division bench comprises of two or three judges. A constitutional bench comprises of five or more judges and may even extend to thirteen judges.

High Courts
India consists of 25 High Courts at the state and union territory level. Each High Court has jurisdiction over a state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories.
Below the High Courts exists a hierarchy of lower courts functioning as civil courts and criminal courts as well as the specialised tribunals. The Madras High Court (1862) in Chennai, Bombay High Court (1862) in Mumbai, Calcutta High Court (1862) in Kolkata and the Allahabad High Court (1866) in Allahabad are the first four High Courts in India.

District and Sub-ordinate Courts
The courts that function below the High Courts are popularly known as the lower courts. They consist of district and subordinate courts. Each state is divided into judicial districts presided over by a 'District and Sessions Judge'. The judge is known as a 'District Judge' when she/he presides over a civil case and a 'Sessions Judge' when he presides over a criminal case. The district judge is also called a 'Metropolitan Sessions Judge' when she/he is presiding over a district court in a city which is designated as a metropolitan area by the State government. District judges may be working with Additional District judges, depending upon the judicial workload.

The district judge is the highest judicial authority below a High Court judge. The District Court also holds appellate jurisdiction and supervision over all sub-ordinate Courts below it. On the Civil side, the sub-ordinate Courts below the District Court include (in ascending order) - Junior Civil Judge Court, Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Senior Civil Judge Courts (also called sub-Courts). Sub-ordinate Courts on Criminal side (in ascending order) include: Second Class Judicial Magistrates Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.

Apart from the sub-ordinate courts, Munsiff Courts also form a part of this hierarchy. They are the lowest in terms of handling matters of civil nature and function below the subordinate courts. Their pecuniary limits, meaning the court's ability to hear matters upto a particular claim for money, are notified by respective State governments.

Tribunals
Apart from these judicial bodies, Indian judiciary is also characterised by numerous semi-judicial bodies involved in dispute resolution. These bodies function as semi or quasijudicial bodies because they may consist of administrative officers or judges without a legal background. Yet they function in their judicial capacity and hear relevant legal matters and settle claims between the parties.
Tribunals have been constituted under specific constitutional mandate enshrined in the Constitution of India or through legal enactments, e.g., a law passed by the legislature. Their creation aims at increasing efficiency in resolving disputes and reducing the burden on courts.

Examples of some of these tribunals include: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for resolving the grievances and disputes of central government employees, and State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) for state government employees; Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for resolving disputes in the telecom sector in India; and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for disputes involving environmental issues.

Some of these tribunals function with regulators. Regulators are specialised government agencies that oversee the law and order compliance in the relevant government sectors. For example, one of the tribunals TDSAT functions alongside the regulator, TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) in formulating laws and policy for resolving telecom disputes in India. Therefore these tribunals complement and supplement the role of courts in maintaining law and justice in the society.

Salient Features of Indian Judiciary

India as a Common Law Jurisdiction
Taking its precedence from the British tradition of 'common law', India has adopted a similar model. Under this scheme of the common law system, the decisions, orders and judgments developed by the judges in India help in the creation and development of laws and legal principles, which becomes binding precedents for all subordinate courts in the hierarchy.

Therefore, courts play a vital role in creating laws, especially where gaps in law exist, and the legislature or executive have failed to enact laws. Thus, apart from administering civil and criminal justice, courts and judges serve a vital function in the federal set up of the country.

Opposed to this model, is a concept of civil law system followed in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Continental Europe. The main difference between common and civil law is with respect to the source of law. Under common law, judiciary can make laws through judicial decisions of courts; however under civil law, only the legislature or executive has the power to create laws and rules. This salient feature of Indian judiciary in following a common law model further strengthens the role of courts in India.5D

Adversarial Model of Dispute Resolution
Courts in India follow the adversarial system of adjudication as opposed to the inquisitorial model followed in several civil law countries. In an adversarial model, the role of lawyers representing the party becomes vital. Lawyers of the opposing parties present their cases before a neutral judge who in turn provides a decision based on the merits of the case, as presented by the lawyers. In the inquisitorial system of law, on the other hand, judges are more pro-active in adjudicating the matter. Rather than acting as neutral judges, they have rights to inquire and probe into the matter, much like a police.

Here the role of lawyers representing the party and the role of judge cumulatively becomes important in determining the manner in which a civil case or criminal trial proceeds.

Attorney General of India and Law officers in India
Certain law offices at the Union and State level exist to advise the executive wing of the government. These law officers are taken up by law officers, who derive their mandate either from the Constitution or other statutory enactments and rules. The Attorney General is the first legal officer of the country. The Attorney General of India is appointed by the President of India under Article 76 of the Constitution, which states that he can hold the office during the pleasure of the President. The Attorney General must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, possessing adequate legal practice or have served as a judge for a requisite duration as mandated by the Constitution. It is the duty of the Attorney General for India to give advice to the Government of India upon legal matters and to perform other duties of legal character as may be referred or assigned to him by the President. In the performance of his duties, he has the right to appear in the Courts. This is known as a right to audience given to the Attorney General.

He may also take part in the proceedings of the Parliament without a right to vote. In discharge of his functions, the Attorney General is assisted by a Solicitor General and four Additional Solicitors General. The position of the Solicitor General and Additional Solicitors General is not recognised in the Constitution. However they are governed through rules enacted by the Parliament.

Similar to the Attorney General of India, the position of Advocate General exists at the state level. An Advocate General is a senior law officer who acts as a legal adviser to the State Government. According to Article 165 of the Constitution, Advocate General is appointed by the Governor of the respective state. The Advocate General is the chief legal advisor of the State and performs duties of a legal character including representing the State before the courts either through himself/herself or through the law officers or pleaders appointed by the State. The qualification required for appointment as an Advocate General is similar to that of a judge of a High Court. The office of an Advocate General is held during the pleasure of the Governor, who also determines the nature of remunerations for the Advocate General. Additional Advocate Generals are also appointed to assist the office of the Advocate General.

Constitution, Roles And Impartiality
The judiciary in India derives its powers and functions from the Constitution, which till date remains the fundamental legal text for the functioning of Indian democracy.

Independence of Judiciary as a Constitutional Safeguard
Article 50 of the Indian Constitution lays the rule of independence of judiciary. This is understood as judiciary's autonomous status, separate from the executive or legislative wings of the government. Independence of judiciary helps in the maintenance of rule of law, ensuring good governance and creating a free and fair society. The independent status of the judiciary and roles to be performed by it; can be understood as two sides of the same coin. In this context, one must understand the reasons for granting a special status to the judiciary:25A
First, Judiciary's independence is linked to its role as the watch-dog in a democracy. It monitors and maintains the checks and balances over the other arms of the government.
Thus judiciary emerges as a mediator when any organ of the government exercises 'excess power' which tends to violate the larger societal or individual interest. For instance, the Indian Police has extensive powers for crime detection and gathering evidence for prosecution of criminals. It is common for the police to interrogate suspect criminals in order to gather the best evidence of the crime. However such powers should not impinge upon the rights of the accused or the suspected criminal. An accused cannot be coerced into giving statement pointing to his/her guilt. This right has been constitutionally guaranteed to the accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states: 'No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself'.
Judiciary steps in when such delicate interests are at loggerheads. Similarly, when there is a thin line of difference as in case of a police exercising their power to gather witness, in the exercise of the 'legitimate' and 'excess' right of a state organ, the role of judiciary becomes vital.
Second, in order to ensure that constitutionally guaranteed freedoms such as freedom to speak in public or peacefully assemble, are interpreted as per the true constitutional philosophy, judiciary has been kept free from any external pressures. This is particularly useful when judiciary is interpreting a case of conflict between say between the government (political party in power) and certain protesting people of the civil society who have peacefully articulate their opinions on social issues for example, crime against women.
Third, Judiciary acts as a guardian of fundamental rights which are constitutionally granted to every citizen in India.
Independence of judiciary was carved out during the formation of Indian Constitution as India was transitioning from a feudal to a democratic order. It was done to fully translate the well-knit provisions of extensive rights guaranteed under the Constitution into the lives of average citizens. Our Constitution grants us unique rights such as:
- Civil and political rights—the right to life; right to freedom of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. 
-  Economic, social and cultural rights—freedom to practice any religion; protection of interests of minorities. A. independent and impartial Judiciary has empowered

Indian citizens and performed this role. Illustratively, one may look into the role of Court in giving an expanded meaning to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which talks about a general right to life and personal liberty. For example, within this freedom, the Supreme Court has held that a street vendor has a right to operate on streets as selling products on street is linked to his livelihood and daily living which is protected under Article 21. 
Similarly, the Supreme Court has also stated that those who are aged, disabled and destitute in India including men and women have a right to food, which is most essential for their survival. State has a corresponding duty to provide them with food. This right has been read into the general right under Article 21. Therefore, the Court is performing the role which it was granted at the time of the drafting of Indian constitution. Even though the drafters did not include specific rights such as livelihood and food, within the constitutional ambit of enforceable fundamental rights, they are now made available to the citizens of India as matters of rights. This has been possible only by the interpretation and rule making function of the courts in India.
In the domain of criminal law as well, independence of judiciary is linked to the granting of a fair trial to the accused. This becomes extremely important even when the accused are foreign nationals or persons who have committed crimes against the state, e.g. terrorists.

Independence of judiciary is vital for the respect of due process of law. Due process of law means that the State must respect all the legal rights that are owed to a person and confirm to the norms of fairness, liberty, fundamental rights etc. Only an independent judiciary can make this concept operational. History has evidenced that whenever the independence of judiciary has been disturbed, it has directly impacted upon the due process of governance and rights granted to average citizens.
These lessons teach us that even in grave political circumstances, the rights of citizens should not be compromised and this could only be possible through an independent and impartial judiciary. Therefore independence of judiciary remains a vital and core principle even in the modern democracy.

Role of Indian Judiciary

The Role of Courts 
Indian judiciary comprises of the Supreme Court, High Court, Sub-ordinate Courts and other Tribunals. The role of these courts along with their composition, powers and procedures for functioning have been elaborated in the Constitution.

Different Roles of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India primarily exercises the role of an adjudicator and interpreter. This is explained through different jurisdictions vested with the court. Its role as an adjudicator and interpreter can be understood through the original and appellate jurisdiction vested with the Court. Under Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is granted original jurisdiction. This power is exercised to adjudicate amongst disputes between Union and one or more states and between two or more states. Such disputes must involve some question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of legal rights can be adjudicated. For example, the dispute between the sharing of river or other natural resources between two states in India can be directly brought to the Supreme Court under exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Article 32 of the Constitution further gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens, through issuing directions, orders and writs. This is popularly known as the 'Writ Jurisdiction' of the Court.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court. Appeal to the Supreme Court may be made against any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases. Like the exercise of original jurisdiction, these cases must involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Substantial questions of law as highlighted above connote questions of law or fact on which the existence or extent of legal rights can be adjudicated.

Apart from the listed appellate powers of the Court, the Supreme Court is also vested with wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals as provided in Article 136 of the Constitution. Under its discretion, the Court may grant a special leave to appeal and receive any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

Besides being an adjudicator and interpreter, Supreme Court also functions as an adviser. Court's advisory jurisdiction may be sought by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution. This procedure is termed as 'Presidentia Reference' and is recognised as the 'Advisory jurisdiction' of the Court. Under this scheme, President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance. However, it is not binding on the Supreme Court to answer questions raised in the reference. In the last more than 70 years, only a handful of references have been made. The Supreme Court can refuse to provide its advisory opinion if it is satisfied that the questions are either socio-economic or political in nature.

So far we have seen the constitutional imperatives that permit the Supreme Court to adjudicate and advice on disputes coming from the sub-ordinate courts, individuals exercising writ jurisdiction and the President of India. In the recent years, the Supreme Court has relaxed its locus standi (the right of a party to appear and be heard by a Court) and has permitted public spirited citizens and civil society organisations to approach the Court on behalf of the victims for better administration of justice. On other accounts, the Court has on its own initiative started cases of public importance. For instance, it has summoned and reprimanded state authorities for their apathy and lack of diligence in running child care homes in the states. All, this has been possible through the judicial activism of the Supreme Court through Public Interest Litigation (PIL, Janhit Yachika). This extra-ordinary jurisdiction has been invoked either through writs or even by writing letters to Judges, whose modalities are maintained under the guidelines for PIL enacted by the Court. The first ever PIL is listed as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and dates back to 1979. A public interest activist lawyer filed this case on behalf of thousands of prisoners of the Bihar jail against the inhuman conditions of the prison.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati declared the right for free legal aid and expeditious trial of these prisoners, which ultimately led to their release.
Since then, PILs have encompassed several issues including socio-economic rights (freedom from bonded labour), legal entitlements (right to food; right to work), environment issues (clean air and water) and political reforms (disclosure of assets by members of the executive; disbursement of natural resources done by the government).

The progress of PIL has thus seemed to incorporate several issues. Yet common characteristics encompass these litigations. These characteristics include:
(i) PILs can be termed as non-adversarial litigation that pits the interest of one party over the other. Rather than focussing on traditional litigation of adversary character, PILs are recognised as tools for social change. (ii) PILs are based on the tenets of citizen standing and representative standing which expands the rights of third-parties to approach the Court. (iii) PIL from its inception is modelled on remedial nature which aims at creating a dynamic, welfare oriented model of judiciary. PIL thus incorporates the Directive Principles whose claims cannot be brought directly to the Courts, into the domain of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, which can be invoked before the Courts as a matter of rights by the citizens of India. Therefore PILs are creating new rights and laws within the realm of the state.
These laws are also democratising citizen's access to justice, thereby strengthening the democracy in India. (iv) PIL further strengthens the role of judiciary as a monitor and watch-dog agency. Fear of being dragged to the Court via PIL has improved the quality of several social institutions in the country such as jails, protective homes, mental asylums etc.
However, with the advent and growth of PILs, they have also been misused for private gains, and led to frivolous litigation on unnecessary issues. They have also been criticised for judicial over-reach and stepping into the shoes of legislature.

High Courts and Lower Courts
The High Courts function as the organs of judicial administration at the State level. Similarly, the lower courts function as centres of civil and criminal justice at the district level. Lower courts as explained above comprise of district and sub-ordinate courts. Districts Courts are usually Courts of first instance, where litigants proceed for their disputes.
These Courts have set territorial and pecuniary limits when accepting cases of civil nature. A similar hierarchy exists in the criminal courts at the sub-ordinate level. Once matters are adjudicated by these courts, they proceed to the High Courts on appeal. Thus sub-ordinate courts are mainly vested with the establishment of facts while the appellate courts deal with interpretation of statues and the correct application of law.
The High Courts have power to issue within their jurisdiction directions, orders, or writs including writs which are in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. This writ jurisdiction is similar to the Supreme Court of India. The role of High Court also becomes similar to the Supreme Court in the exercise of public interest litigation. Furthermore, each High Court has powers of superintendence over all Courts within its jurisdiction. It can call for records from such courts, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms to regulate their practice and proceedings and determine the manner and form in which book entries and accounts shall be kept.

Independence & Impartiality of Indian Judiciary
The meaning and rationale for independence of Indian judiciary has been dealt earlier. However we must also understand how the independence of judiciary is ensured and maintained by the Constitution. The theory of 'constituent mechanism' of independence of judiciary defines judiciary's independence in terms of the independence of its judges.
Judges ought to function in an unbiased manner and scholars as pointed out by Simon Shetreet (The Culture of Judicial Independence; Judges on Trial).
One must note that, independence of judiciary and impartiality of judges exist as two distinct concepts— the former referring to the institution, and the latter referring to its constituent actors. The concept of impartiality of judges can be understood within the broad framework of independence of judiciary. These concepts must be studied in conjunction as they aim at achieving the same goal of maintaining judicial integrity in the democratic process of the country.

It is important to discuss the constitutional framework for the independence of judiciary. Broadly, the Indian Constitution contains several provisions to serve these twin functions.

Provisions Relating to the Institution of Judiciary
The Constitution recognises that vast powers enjoyed by the courts, especially the Supreme Court cannot be curtailed by the Parliament. In the civil cases, Parliament only has a limited right to change the pecuniary limits for appeal to the Supreme Court. In turn, the Supreme Court has a vast appellate jurisdiction and supplementary powers to enable its efficient functioning. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts are courts of record and possess the power to punish for contempt against the judiciary or judges.

Provisions Relating to the Judges
Independence of judges is crucial to ensuring independence of judiciary. The following legal provisions mandate judge's independence and impartiality: (i) Once appointed, judges are provided with a security of tenure till they reach a retirement age. This age remains 62 for the High Court judges and 65 for the Supreme Court judges. Judges are not allowed to practice as advocates in the same or equivalent courts, post their retirement. For example, a retired High Court judge can practice in the Supreme Court, but is prevented from practicing in the same or other High Courts. This ensures that ex-judges practicing at the bar do not influence the decision of the bench, with whom they may have presumed familiarity. (ii) Judges cannot be easily removed from their office except for proven misbehaviour and incapacity. The legal process is kept stringent to ensure security of tenure of the judges. (iii) The salaries and allowances of judges are fixed and not subject to vote of the legislature. Judges derive their salaries from the consolidated fund of India (for the Supreme Court) and consolidated fund of state (in case of High Courts). Their emoluments cannot be altered to their disadvantage except in the event of financial emergency. (iv) Even the judicial conduct of the judges has been kept immune from examination by other Constitutional organs. The conduct of judges of both the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot be discussed in Parliament or state legislature, except when a motion for removal of a judge is being presented to the President. (v) Supreme Court of India has been authorized to have its own establishment and to have complete control over it. It is further authorized to make appointments of officers and staff of the court and determine their service conditions.

Therefore, one can conclude that independence of judiciary is a constitutionally conferred protection.

Appointments, Trainings, Retirement And Removal Of Judges

Appointment of Judges
Constitutional Mandate
The method of appointment of judges at the Supreme Court, High Court and District Courts has been enshrined in the Constitution of India. According to Article 124 of the Constitution, 'every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States, as the President may deem necessary'. The Article also provides that in case of appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice must be consulted. The Article further provides for the qualifications required to become a judge at the Supreme Court. These qualifications include:
-  Citizenship of India, and 
-  Has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more High Courts in succession; or
-  Has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
-  Is a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President.

Similarly, the procedure for appointment of judges at the High Court has been enshrined in Article 217 of the Constitution. This Article prescribes that every Judge of the High Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State; and in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned. The qualifications of a High Court judge includes:
-  Citizenship of India, and
-  Has for at least ten years held a judicial office in India; or
-  Has for at least ten years been an advocate in a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.

For the district and sub-ordinate Courts or the lower judiciary in India, the procedure for appointment is mentioned in Article 233 of the Constitution. Appointment of district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. The qualifications for appointment as District Judge include:
-  Member of judicial service of the State; or
-  Any person who has had a minimum of seven years of practice as a lawyer at bar.

Current Practice in the Appointment of Judges
Despite a clear Constitutional mandate, the appointment of Judges in practice remains a complex process. There has been an extensive debate over the appointment procedure of judges which has seen alterations in actual practice. A. present, the appointment at the Supreme Court and the
High Court follows a collegium model, which is a judicial creation through case-laws, even though not constitutionally mandated. Under the collegium model for appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India consults four senior most judges of the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of India sends his recommendations to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, who then puts up the same to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then advise the President. For High Courts, the collegium comprises of the Chief Justice of the High Court and two senior most judges of the High Court. The Chief Justice conveys his recommendations to the Chief Minister of the State and the Governor of the State, who in turn send their views directly to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The complete material is then forwarded to the Chief Justice of India, who in consultation with a collegium of two Judges of the Supreme Court, would send his recommendations to the Union Minister of Law and Justice. The Union Minister of Law and Justice then puts up the same to the Prime Minister who will advise the President in the matter of appointment.
The seniority of a Judge plays a vital role in his/ her elevation or appointment as Chief Justice. For initial appointment as a Judge in a High Court for those from the lower judiciary inter-se seniority does matter; and for elevation of advocates from the bar, relative merit matters.
The collegium model, considers the relative merits of those Judges/advocates in the zone of consideration for elevation with reference to their judgements and cases.

Tracing the Historical Debate on the Issue of Appointment of Judges
The issue of appointment has often been linked to the independence of judiciary and there has been a constant tussle between executive and judiciary over the appointment of judges. As early as the 14th Law Commission Report under the chairmanship of M.C. Setalvad, India's first attorney general in 1958, these concerns were raised. The Commission noted the appointment or rejection of appointment of judges by the executive, in contrary to what the judiciary suggested, creating rather awkward situations. The report highlighted that several appointments were being made on political, regional, communal or other grounds as a result of which the fittest of the lot were never appointed. The Commission thus suggested on strengthening the process of consultation between the executive and the judiciary.

Later, a series of three judicial decisions popularly known as the Three Judges Cases helped in the development of the modern collegium system. This development has been a result of a tumultuous process, but in modern practice governs the rule for judicial appointments. The first Judges case (1981) gave primacy to the Executive and stated that the CJI's recommendation to the President can be refused for cogent reasons. It gave vast powers to the Executive for the next 12 years, in making judicial appointments. This however was modified in the second Judges case (1993). The Judgment held that the Chief Justice of India has primacy in the matter of appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, and that an appointment 'has to be in conformity with the final opinion of the Chief Justice of India', while emphasising the desirability of consultation of the Chief Justice with other Judges. The executive element in the appointment process was reduced to a minimum and political influence eliminated. This decision rendered by a nine-judge bench was however supported by only five judges on the bench and the four other judges did not concur with the majority opinion. The years that followed thus witnessed some confusion in the process of appointment as CJI made some unilateral appointments and the role of the President was reduced to a mere approval. Later in 1998, the Supreme Court in a Presidential reference (1998 advisory decision) emphasized upon the role of 'consultation' and held that the process of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts is an 'integrated participatory consultative process'. The Chief Justice of India firms up his opinion after consultation with a plurality of judges; his opinion is formed by a body of senior Judges.

Judicial Training
National Judicial Academy is a government funded training institute constituted for the training of Supreme and High Court judges and judicial officers in India. This body was founded in 1993 and is located in Bhopal, with a registered office in New Delhi. It aims at suggesting judicial reforms and providing research support services for greater efficiency, fairness and productivity in judicial decisions. 

As a part of providing judicial training, the National Judicial Education Strategy (NJES) has been established in 2006 to provide judicial education to High Court judges, District Judiciary and State Judicial Academies. The training consists of conferences, orientations, workshops on core judicial skills and administration and seminars on substantive law and justice. The Academy also aims at enhancing the online skills registry of Indian judges to increase their proficiency and making better access to judicial decisions.

Retirement of Judges
The retirement age for a Supreme Court judge is 65 years. 

Similarly, a High Court judge continues in his office, till the retirement age which is 62 years. The age of retirement of District Court judges is determined by their respective State Government under special service rules.
The retirement age of judges as specified in the Constitution has been subject to intense debate in India.

There lies a pending bill in the Parliament (114th Amendment Bill, 2010) which proposes to increase the retirement age of High Court judges from 62 to 65. However, since the bill is still being debated in the Parliament, it has no legal effect. Similarly, the Venkatachalliah Committee formed to review the working of the Constitution (2000) suggested to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 68. These proposals have been made in the light of global comparative standards, followed to determine the retirement age for the judges.

For instance, there is no retirement age for Supreme Court judges in the United States. In the High Court of Australia, the retirement age is 70. The Supreme Court of Canada has fixed the retirement age of their judges as 75.
Similarly in the UK Supreme Court, the retirement age is 75, while the Constitutional Court of South-Africa follows the age of 70 or after 12 years of the service of the judge. 
Similarly, Indian proposals focus on enhancing the age of retirement for the judges. It is done in-order to facilitate them excel in their service like their counter-part judges in the foreign jurisdictions. Similarly, several senior lawyers with requisite expertise and experience decline to accept judge-ship due to the lower retirement age of 62, especially in the High Courts. By an enhanced age, this problem could be rectified as advocates would have greater incentive to forego their individual legal practice and function in the role of judges. Further, the relatively early retirement age is often linked to the declining quality of judicial service and the inability of a judge to properly effectuate the stipulated judicial work-load. Overall, the proposals mention that such issues could be taken care of, if the retirement age of the judges would be increased.

Removal of Judges
Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts can be removed through a process called as 'impeachment'. The process for removal of the judges is exactly the same for both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This has been stated explicitly in the Constitution of India. A. a part of the process of impeachment, an inquiry is made into the grounds of removal of the judges. The grounds for removal include: (i) proven misbehaviour or (ii) incapacity. The inquiry into these grounds is made under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1986. This inquiry is done by a committee of three members, of which two are judges — one from the Supreme Court and second is the Chief Justice of High Court. If the complaint is against the high court judge then two judges from the Supreme Court constitute this Committee.
Based on the findings, the recommendation to impeach the judge has to be made by the Chief Justice of India to the President of India. If it is accepted then, the proposal of impeachment must be introduced in the Parliament for discussion by 100 MPs in Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in Rajya Sabha. The copy of the proposal is given to the concerned judge before the proceeding starts in the Parliament of India.
The impeachment process in the Parliament is governed under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. Under this scheme, the motion of impeachment has to be passed by the two-third majority members present and voting must be done separately in the each house of the Parliament. If the motion is passed then the formal announcement is done by the President of India. Therefore, the overall process of impeachment is lengthy and complex.
Consequently, in the history of Indian judiciary, this process has been successful only once. Justice Soumitra Sen, the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court was impeached in 2011 for misappropriation of funds. Previously in 1991, the impeachment process was initiated against Justice Ramaswamy, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court but did not succeed on falling short of the two-thirds voting criteria. 

As to the removal of judges in the lower judiciary, a District Judge or an Additional District Judge can be removed from his office by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. '...The success of a democracy largely depends upon an impartial, strong and independent judiciary endowed with sufficient power to administer justice,' 'Although both judicial independence and judicial accountability are vital for maintaining the rule of law, they are sometimes projected as conflicting phenomenon. Judicial accountability has become an indispensable counterbalance to judicial independence. 'In that connection, accountability is fostered through the process of selection, discipline and removal found in the Constitution and the statutes in various judicial systems,' Stressing the need for an independent judiciary, Justice P. Sathasivam, Chief Justice of India (2014) said, without it, there is a little hope for the rule of law.