DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW






BASICS OF CASE LAW
SYNOPSIS ON:
Comparison Of Judgement models of three countries INDIA,U.S.A and
U.K


SUBMI TTED TO: SUBMI TTED BY :
MR. SHASHANK SHEKHAR ADITYA JOSHI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR B.A.LL.B. (sec-A) I SEM.
Dr. RMLNLU R. NO. 13







ACKNOWLEDGEMENT :

I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher for the subject Mr. Shashank Shekhar
for giving me such a challenging topic and also for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and
constant encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college
for their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing
this task through various stages.
I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation
during the period of my assignment.
Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without
which this assignment would not have been possible.
.









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. Vs. Versus
2. L-N U.S.A Lexis Nexis U.S.A
3. Sec. Section
4. & And
5. Eg. Example
6. Co. Company
7. Ltd. Limited
8. Ch. Chapter
9. LR Law Reporter
10. AIR All India Reporter
11. SCC Supreme Court Cases
12. SC Supreme Court
13. HC High Court
14. Cons. Constitution












OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH

This research is aimed at informing people about the judgement models of three highly
judicial powered countries INDIA,U.S.A and U.K.This research paper will also try to find if
there is any interlinkage between three countrys judgement model and also comparing the
models with each other.And also research about the history of judgement in these countries
and which model is compatible that can be followed to decrease the time to deliver justice.
INTRODUCTION
People can often be treated and judged in a less than equal manner before people even
know the true nature of the person, such as the way that the
Finch children think that Boo Radley is some kind of a monster. Or the way
people call Atticus Finch is called a nigger-lover. One of my most favorite
quotations is that of Martin Luther King Junior. "I have a dream, that one day
my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of
their character." People should make judgements of the person's character, not
by their appearance, race, religion, sexuality, and morals.
One of the main focuses of the book is the Finch children trying to get
Boo Radley next door to come out of his house. To them he is a mean monstrous
person. But for some reason they seem to think that tormenting him is the best
way to occupy their time. In fact, to the whole town the Radley family are mean
people that kept to them selves. "There goes the meanest man ever God blew
breath into," said Calpurnia (page 12). This shows how mean people can be just
by judging others by their outsides. What gives these people the right to make
these kind of conclusions without ever even meeting the person(s).
Later in the book the Finch children find presents hidden in a tree next
to the Radley place. They can't figure out who would set these nice gifts out
for them. Later they find out that is Boo Radley. He is just trying to be nice
and other people won't accept his original approach on life. At one point in
the book the children decide to go up onto the porch to try and get a peak
inside the window. Then they see Mr. Radley inside with a shotgun and they ran
away. Jem got her pants ripped off on a fence and returned later to retrieve
them and she found them mended and laying over the fence. Another example of

how nice the Radley's are is when it was shivering cold outside someone places a
blanket over Scout's shoulders. Only later does she realize that the act was
performed by the mysterious Boo Radley. I have just given multiple examples
straight from the book of how the personalities of the person can be radically
different from their appearance. That leads back to my thesis of judging people
by their character not their outer shell.
One more maddening incident in the book that made me just furious when I
read it was when people started calling Atticus Finch a nigger-lover. When I
think of the Nazi Holocaust, and slavery in the U.S. in the 1800's, I just get
an anger built up inside of me. I don't see how people can hate a group of
people because of their religion or race. Back to the Atticus Finch incident,
there is nothing wrong with defending someone you think is guilty and there is
no reason to believe that they're guilty just because of the color of their skin.
Why must people use the term nigger-lover is someone is helping out a black
person. Why must people make it their business, and why must they get into
something that has nothing to do with them. They don't even know the real truth.

In conclusion, people make me sick. There is no reason why there should
be any kind of racial or religious kind of discrimination. This book is a
perfect example of discriminating people based upon their outer shell. I liked
this book and it should be read by all so that everyone can understand the
horrors of discrimination, past and present.
JUDGEMENT MODEL OF INDIA

The Indian Legal System is one of the oldest legal systems in the entire history of the world.
It has altered as well as developed over the past few centuries to absorb inferences from the
legal systems across the world. The Constitution of India is the fountainhead of the Indian
Legal System. It demonstrates the AngloSaxon character of judiciary which is basically
drawn from the British Legal System because of the long period of British colonial influence
during the British Raj.
There is a single hierarchy of courts in India. Much of contemporary Indian law shows
substantial European and American influence. Various acts and ordinances first introduced by

the British are still in effect in modified form today. During the drafting of the Indian
Constitution, laws from Ireland, the United States, Britain, and France were all synthesized to
get a refined set of Indian laws as it currently stands. Indian laws also adhere to the United
Nations guidelines on human rights law and environmental law. Certain international trade
laws, such as those on intellectual property, are also enforced in India.
Each state drafts it own laws, however all the states have more or less the same laws. Laws
directed by the central government and the Supreme Court of India via judicial precedent or
general policy directives are binding on all citizens of each state. Each state has its own labor
laws and taxation rates.
THE PRIMARY ORIGINS OF LAW:
1. The Indian Constitution
2. customary law
3. case law, and
4. Statutes (legislation).

Among these, the statutes are operated by the Parliament, union territory legislatures and
state legislatures. There are mainly two categories under which the Indian legal system
operates, these include Indian Civil Law and Criminal Law


India is the uppermost part in the Indian legal system. Under this, each state or a group of
states possesses High Courts. There are several subordinate courts under these High Courts.
BASICS OF INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM:
The President of India appoints the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India has its own advisory and appellate jurisdiction that extends to
the enforcement of primary rights mentioned by the Indian Constitution and to any argument
in between the Government of India and all the states of India.
While the Indian legal system is measured fair, a large backlog of different types of cases can
be found and regular dissolutions can effect in the delay before the closing of a particular
case. Though, matters of precedence and public interest are dealt with efficiently. Besides
these, interim relief is also allowed in other cases where it is necessary.
JUDICIARY SYSTEM IN INDIAN VILLAGES:
In rural areas of India, people are encouraged to resolve their problems with help of one main
legal system which is Panchayats. It is mainly a group of five respected people of a village
and they are appointed by the local people to solve their problems.
Moreover, to encourage both the trade and industry in India, the existing settlement law is
proposed to be improved under the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill 1995
COURTS STRUCTURE:
India has a quasifederal structure with 29 States further subdivided into about 601
administrative Districts. The Judicial system however has a unified structure. The Supreme
Court, the High Courts and the lower Courts constitute a single Judiciary. Broadly there is a
three tier division.
Each District has a District Court and each State a High Court. The Supreme Court of India is
the Apex Court. Each State has its own laws constituting Courts subordinate to the District
Courts. Besides, a number of judicial Tribunals have been set up in specialized areas. The
significant Tribunals are: Company Law Board; Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission; Securities Appellate Tribunal; Consumer Protection Forum; Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction; Customs and Excise Control Tribunal; Tax Tribunal;
etc. These Tribunals function under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court where they
may be situated.
SUPREME COURT

The Indian Judicial System has the Supreme Court of India at its helm, which at present is
located only in the capital city of Delhi, without any benches in any part of the nation, and is

presided by the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court of India has many Benches for the
litigation, and this apex court is not only the final court of permissible Appeal, but also deals
with interstate matters, and matters comprising of more than one state, and the matters
between the Union Government and any one or more states, as the matters on its original
side. The President of India can always seek consultation and guidance including the opinion
of the apex court and its judges. This court also has powers to punish anybody for its own
contempt.
The largest bench of the Supreme Court of India is called the Constitution Bench and
comprises of 5 or 7 judges, depending on the importance attached of the matters before it, as
well as the work load of the court. The apex court comprises only of various benches
comprising of the Divisional benches of 2 and 3 judges, and the Full benches of 3 or 5 judges.
The Appeals to this court are allowed from the High Court, only after the matter is deemed to
be important enough on the point of law or on the subject of the constitution of the nation,
and is certified as such by the relevant High Court.
In the absence of any certificate from the High Court, a person may, with the leave of the
apex court, appeal to this court, by filing a Special Leave Petition before the court.
A person or body may also file a Writ against the violation of Fundamental Rights granted
under the Constitution of India, with the permission of the apex court.
Certain writs are allowed to be instituted in the apex court directly, against the orders of the
Courts of the Court Martial, and the Central Administrative Tribunals.
HIGH COURTS
Every State has a High Court, which works under the direct guidance and supervision of the
Supreme Court of India, and is the uppermost court in that state, and generally the last court
of regular appeals. Though generally the High Courts are only the courts of Appeal, however
in the three presidency towns (As the British had then termed) of Mumbai [Bombay],
Chennai [Madras] and Kolkata [Calcutta], the High Courts also have powers of the original
Side beyond a certain financial limit.
The High Courts are also termed as the courts of equity, and can be approached in writs not
only for violation of fundamental rights under the provisions of Article 32 of the Indian
constitution, but also for any other rights under Article 226 of the Constitution, and under its
powers to supervise over all its subordinate courts falling within the physical jurisdiction of
the same under Article 227 of the Constitution. In fact, when apparently there is no effective

remedy available to a person in equity, it can always move the High Court in an appropriate
writ.
Following is the hierarchy of the courts in India:



High Courts frame their own rules, and arrange to implement them. Under certain provisions
of Law, the High Courts have the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Many times the High
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction along with its subordinate courts, for effective remedy at
the earliest. All the High Courts have different division benches in different parts of the
respective states for speedier cheaper and effective dispensing of justice. For the purpose of
disposal of its business, the Judges in the High Court, either sit singly or in benches of two or
more judges in benches for deciding more important matters.
SUBORDINATE COURTS TO HIGH COURT
Each state is divided into judicial districts presided over by a District and Sessions Judge.
He is known as a District Judge when he presides over a civil case, and a Sessions Judge
when he presides over a criminal case. He is the highest judicial authority below a High
Court judge. Below him, there are courts of civil jurisdiction, known by different names in
different states DISTRICT JUDGES
These courts are primarily Civil Courts to hear generally the appeals from the courts of
original civil jurisdiction in the Districts and Tehsils (Talukas). However these courts have
also been given original civil jurisdiction under many enactments.
SESSIONS JUDGES
These courts are primarily Criminal Courts, with jurisdiction to revise the orders from the
subordinate magistrates as well as to try serious offences, as prescribed by law.
APPELLATE COOPERATIVE COURTS
These courts hear only the Appeals and revisions emanating from the judgments and orders
of the subordinate original CoOperative Courts and officers, under the provisions of
various CoOperative and related laws.
APPELLATE LABOUR COURTS
These courts hear only the Appeals and revisions emanating from the judgments and orders
of the subordinate original Labour Courts and





JUDGEMENT MODEL OF UNITED KINGDOM
The judiciary is a general name given to judges in the English Legal System. Although there
are different types of judges and level of judges, their roles are the same which are listening
cases in a court and interpreting and applying the law to the facts of the case in an unbiased
manner. The types of judges in the UK include superior and inferior judges. Just like the
hierarchy of courts, it is the same with judges. The superior judges starts from the High court
Judges (Puisine Judges), the Lord Justices of Appeal who sits in the Court of Appeal (both
civil and criminal divisions), and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law lord) who sits in the
House of Lords which is now Supreme court, this will be further discussed as we go on in
this chapter. The inferior judges include the Circuit judges, the District judges, Recorders and
the Chairmen of Tribunal. The Qualifications for all of these differ as they as well differ in
roles, positions and functions. As set out in the Court and Legal Services act 1990 which
broke the monopoly of only barristers becoming judges, it enabled solicitors the opportunity
to also become judges. Before becoming a judge at any level, one must have been qualified as
a barrister or solicitor, qualification is the main criteria not necessarily must have been
practicing. Also in 1994, the Lord Chancellor lifted the ban which as prevented lawyers in
Civil Services and Crown Prosecution services from becoming judges; this enhanced the
opportunity of having more judges and more potential candidates. The Qualifications for
becoming a district judge include 7 years of qualification as a solicitor of barrister. For
becoming a district judge, one is to have 10 years qualification as a lawyer or 3 years
experience from being a district judge. For Circuit judges, they may possess the holding of a
post of a recorder, may also have possession of either a 10 years crown court of county court
qualification under the Court and Legal Services Act 1990.furthermore, the individual must
have been a district judges, social security commissioner, chairman of an industrial tribunal
or stipendiary magistrate for 3 years[28]. Being a High Court Judge requires 10 years as a
lawyer or 2 year experience as a Circuit judge. Becoming a Lord Justice of Appeal requires
10 years experience from being a Lord Justices of Appeal and lastly, becoming a Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary, requires the holding of high judicial office for 2 years and possession of
15 years in a supreme court as provided by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990[29]. One
of the key significant changes to the judiciary in the UK is the Constitutional Reform Act

2005, it made a lot of changes to the judiciary in the UK and the main reason behind this is to
further enhance separation of powers and also to promote Independence of the Judiciary.
A key significant of this act was to the role and functions of the Lord Chancellor.
Over the years, the Lord Chancellor had occupied a unique position in the UK. He was a
member of the three arms of government; by this he exercised all the powers of government.
In his role then, he was the head of the judiciary, he was the speaker of the House of Lords,
he was a judge in the House of Lords, and in regards to appointment of judges; he directly
appoints inferior judges and nominates superior judges for appointment by the queen.
However with this constitutional Reform Act 2005, most of his powers were reduced. First,
the Lord Chancellor has ceased to be the head of the judiciary as the new head of the
judiciary is now the Lord chief justice who is also the president of the courts in England and
Whales. Secondly, the Lord Chancellors automatic link between his post and the lord
speakership of the House of Lords was broken as the post of the Lord Speaker was created.
Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor does not sit as a judge in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he is
required to take an oath of office to always respect the rule of law, defend the independence
of the judiciary and ensure the provision of resources for efficient and effective running of
the judiciary. Lastly, the Lord Chancellor no longer appoints judges; this is now carried out
by the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) created under the section 6(1) of the act.
Before the act, the process of appointing judges by the lord chancellor is as follows; for lords
of appeal in ordinary (law lords), the lord chancellor makes a list of those he thinks should be
Law Lords and passes the list to the Prime minister who selects somebody from the list and
advices the queen on who to appoint to the post. There are 12 law lords who sit in the
appellate committee of the House of Lords. In most cases the first choice candidate of the
Lord Chancellor is the one who gets the appointment. These law lords hear criminal and civil
cases appeal where the case involves a point of law. The justices of appeal are also appointed
just as law lords are. It involves the Lord Chancellor making a list and sending the list to the
Prime Minister who makes a selection and advices the queen on appointing. The Lord
Justices of appeal sits in both criminal and civil division thereby hearing criminal and civil
cases. The works of judges in court of appeal is quite more than those in the House of Lords;
therefore high court judges usually form part of a panel that helps with their workloads
especially in the criminal division. So when hearing a criminal appeal case,here may be a lord
justice of appeal and two high court judges hearing the case For high court judges, the Lord
Chancellor could invite people for it, but the position of the judgeship of the high court has
been advertised since 1998. The workloads of high court judges are quite much as they act as

deputy to the lord justices of appeal in some criminal cases. Precisely, there have been some
discouragements for barristers while thinking of becoming a high court judge is because of
enumeration. A Queen Council earns an annual salary of about 500,000 pounds while a high
court judge earns an amount far low annually; they earn about 150,000 pounds annually.
Also, for security of pension, they are required to have served for at least 20 years while
before it was just 15 years[34]. All of these constitutes a bit to why they abstain a bit from
being a high court judge. However, their appointment includes that the Lord Chancellor looks
at those who applies and he makes his selection, this is passed to the queen who will
officially appoint the individual to the position of a high court judge. Generally, for inferior
Judges the Lord Chancellor is directly responsible for their appointment based on the
applications of the particular applicants. As at now the position of the district judges and the
circuit judges are advertised and it is based on the requirements placed in the advertisement
that applications will be made. The first advertisment that was made for the position of the
circuit judge was stated that applicants must be 45 and 60. Their appointment includes an
interview by a panel made up of a serving judge, a layperson and somebody from
the Lord Chancellors office. The panel makes their selection and passes it to the Lord
Chancellor who officially appoints the person into office[35]. There is only one crown court
but this is divided into six distinct circuits which are serviced by circuit judges who sit as
county court judges to hear civil cases. As at the moment, there are about 606 circuit judges
currently referred to as Your Honor[36]. All of these appointments process are now a story
of the past. The appointment processes of judges is now carried out by the Judicial
Appointment Commission, although it has appointment in its name its rather a selecting
body as the official appointment is made by the Queen. The commission is made up of 15
members consisting of 5 laypersons, 6 judges, 1 magistrates, 1 solicitor, 1 barrister and 1
tribunal member and s.63(2) requires that the selection of the judiciary should be solely based
on merit[37]. The Selection process by the JAC differs from the levels of judges. Starting
with the inferior judges and the High Court judges, their selection process starts with an
advertisement placed by the JAC which states the requirements and qualifications needed for
the position. Then following this, people will apply and JAC will check their application,
make a list of those best suited for the job and invite those who meet the requirements to a
selection day. On the selection day, the applicants will be given an examination, interviewed
and given a role play which tests their ability on becoming a judge. While doing these, JAC
checks for intellectual capacity, integrity, ability to communicate, objectivity, independence

of mind and intelligence. JAC will then make a list of those who succeed in these and pass it
over to the Lord Chancellor who can accept or reject it with a tangible reason for rejection. If
the Lord Chancellor accepts it, then the queen will appoint the individual into office. For
Lord Justices of Appeal, their appointment process includes that JAC makes announcement
of the vacant position, then people applies. The applications of those who apply is checked by
a selection committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and a few members of the JAC.
They check the applications and select the best person suited for the job of being a Lord
Justice of Appeal. After, this selection will be passed directly to the Queen who will appoint
the individual into position. In the case of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, just like other
processes the advertisement will be placed by JAC and people will apply. The JAC will
check the applications and make a list of those best qualified for the job. The list is the passes
to a selection commission made up of a JAC member, the President and the Deputy President
of the Supreme Court. They make their selection and pass it to the Lord Chancellor who
again has the power to accept or reject on a tangible reason. If the Lord Chancellor accepts it,
he will pass the selection to the Prime Minister who will then advice the Queen on
appointing, once the Queen appoints the individual, and then the selection process is finished.
The training of the judiciary is carried out by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) set up in
1975[38]. Before the establishment of JSB, the training of the judiciary is minimal. The
training of newly elected magistrates chairmen, deputy district judges and district judges is
carried out by the magisterial committee of JSB. This committee is also responsible for the
training of the lay magistrates, although this is carried out locally by the Magistrates court
committee. The JSB is also responsible for the instructions and training to all pat time and
full time judges. The jurisdiction of judges are different thereby its carried out by 5 different
committee; they are criminal, civil, tribunals, family and magisterial, while the equal
treatment advisory committee provides advice and supports for all the above committees.The
JSB is constituted of judges, a few leading academic and some professionals[39]. The judicial
official retirement age of judges is 70. Formerly, it was 75 but Judicial Pension and
Retirement Act 1993 reduced High court judges retirement age from 75 while the other
judges 72 to 70. Following is the hierarchy of courts in England:





JUDGEMENT MODEL OF THE UNITED STATES
The federal judiciary is a totally separate, self-governing branch of the government. The
federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect
the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments,
they determine facts and interpret the law to resolve legal disputes.
The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of the Congress. Nor do the courts
have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive
branch departments and agencies. But the judicial branch has the authority to interpret and
decide the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other disputes over federal laws.
The framers of the Constitution considered an independent federal judiciary essential to
ensure fairness and equal justice to all citizens of the United States. The Constitution they

drafted promotes judicial independence in two principal ways. First, federal judges appointed
under Article III of the Constitution can serve for life, and they can be removed from office
only through impeachment and conviction by Congress of Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors. Second, the Constitution provides that the compensation of
Article III federal judges shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office, which
means that neither the President nor Congress can reduce the salaries of most federal judges.
These two protections help an independent judiciary to decide cases free from popular
passion and political influence.
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND CONGRESS

Congress has three basic responsibilities under the Constitution that determine how the
federal courts will operate.
First, it authorizes the creation of all federal courts below the Supreme Court, defines the
jurisdiction of the courts, and decides how many judges there should be for each court.
Second, through the confirmation process, the Senate determines which of the Presidents
judicial nominees ultimately become federal judges.
Third, Congress approves the federal courts budget and appropriates money for the judiciary
to operate. The judiciarys budget is a very small partabout two-tenths of one percentof
the entire federal budget.
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Under the Constitution, the President nominates Article III constitutional judges to a lifetime
appointment, subject to approval by majority vote of the Senate. The President usually
consults senators or other elected officials concerning potential candidates for vacancies on
the federal courts.
The Presidents power to appoint new federal judges is not the judiciarys only interaction
with the executive branch. The Department of Justice, which is responsible for prosecuting
federal crimes and for representing the government in civil cases, is the most frequent
litigator in the federal court system. Several other executive branch agencies are involved
with court operations. The United States Marshals Service, for example, provides security for
federal courthouses and judges, and the General Services Administration builds and
maintains federal courthouses.

Within the executive branch there are military courts and a number of other specialized
subject-matter tribunals and administrative agencies that adjudicate disputes in the first
instance involving specific federal laws and benefits programs, such as the tax laws, patent
and copyright laws, labor laws, social security statutes and regulations, approval of radio and
TV licenses, and the like. Although these executive branch bodies are not part of the judiciary
established under Article III of the Constitution, appeals of their final decisions typically may
be taken to the Article III courts.
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE PUBLIC

With certain very limited exceptions, each step of the federal judicial process is open to the
public. Federal courthouses are designed to inspire in the public a respect for the tradition and
purpose of the American judicial process, and many courthouses are historic buildings.
A citizen who wishes to observe a court in session may go to a federal courthouse, check the
court calendar, which is posted on a bulletin board or television monitor, and watch any
proceeding. Anyone may review the file and papers in a case by going to the clerk of courts
office and asking to review or copy the appropriate case file. Increasingly, court schedules,
dockets, judgments, opinions, and pleadings are being made available to the public in
electronic format through the Internet. Unlike most of the state courts, however, the federal
courts do not permit television or radio coverage The right of public access to court
proceedings is partly derived from the Constitution and partly from court and common-law
tradition. By conducting their judicial work in public view, judges enhance public confidence
in the courts, and they allow citizens to learn firsthand how our judicial system works.
In a few, limited situations the public may not have full access to court records and court
proceedings. In a high-profile trial, for example, there may not be enough space in the
courtroom to accommodate everyone who would like to observe. Access to the courtroom
also may be restricted for security or privacy reasons, such as the protection of a juvenile or a
confidential informant. Finally, certain documents may be placed under seal by the judge,
meaning that they are not available to the public. Examples of sealed information include
certain types of confidential business records, certain law enforcement reports, juvenile
records, and cases involving national security issues.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
With certain notable exceptions, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a broad variety of
cases. The same federal judges handle both civil and criminal cases, public law and private

law disputes, cases involving individuals and cases involving corporations and government
entities, appeals from administrative agency decisions, and law and equity matters. There are
no separate constitutional courts, because all federal courts and judges may decide issues
regarding the constitutionality of federal laws and other governmental actions that arise in the
cases they hear.

TRIAL COURTS

The United States district courts are the principal trial courts in the federal court system. The
district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases. There are 94
federal judicial districts, including one or more in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the overseas territories.
Each federal judicial district includes a United States bankruptcy court operating as a unit of
the district court. The bankruptcy court has nationwide jurisdiction over almost all matters
involving insolvency cases, except criminal issues. Once a case is filed in a bankruptcy court,

related matters pending in other federal and state courts can be removed to the bankruptcy
court. The bankruptcy courts are administratively managed by the bankruptcy judges.
Two special trial courts within the federal judicial branch have nationwide jurisdiction
over certain types of cases. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving
international trade and customs issues. The United States Court of Federal Claims has
jurisdiction over disputes involving federal contracts, the taking of private property by the
federal government, and a variety of other monetary claims against the United States.
Trial court proceedings are conducted by a single judge, sitting alone or with a jury of
citizens as finders of fact. The Constitution provides for a right to trial by a jury in many
categories of cases, including: (1) all serious criminal prosecutions; (2) those civil cases in
which the right to a jury trial applied under English law at the time of American
independence; and (3) cases in which the United States Congress has expressly provided for
the right to trial by jury.
APPELLATE COURTS

The 94 judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United
States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located
within its circuit, as well as appeals from certain federal administrative agencies. In addition,
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in
specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of
International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.
There is a right of appeal in every federal case in which a district court enters a final
judgment. The courts of appeals typically sit in panels of three judges. They are not courts of
cassation, and they may review a case only if one or more parties files a timely appeal from
the decision of a lower court or administrative agency. When an appeal is filed, a court of
appeals reviews the decision and record of proceedings in the lower court or administrative
agency. The court of appeals does not hear additional evidence, and generally must accept the
factual findings of the trial judge. If additional fact-finding is necessary, the court of appeals
may remand the case to the trial court or administrative agency. Remand is unnecessary in
most cases, however, and the court of appeals either affirms or reverses the lower court or
agency decision in a written order or written opinion.

In cases of unusual importance, a court of appeals may sit en bancthat is, with all the
appellate judges in the circuit presentto review the decisions of a three-judge panel. The
full court may affirm or reverse the panel decision.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary. It consists of
the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The court always sits en
banc, with all nine justices hearing and deciding all cases together. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is almost completely discretionary, and, to be exercised, requires the
agreement of at least four justices to hear a case. (In a small number of special cases, such as
boundary disputes between the states, the Supreme Court acts either as the court of first
instance or exercises mandatory appellate review). As a general rule, the Court only agrees to
decide cases where there is a split of opinion among the courts of appeals or where there is an
important constitutional question or issue of federal law that needs to be clarified.
HYPOTHESIS

The various research questions that can come to ones mind while doing the project are:
1. Is there any inter-linkage between the judgement models of countries stated above?

2. Different methods of publishing judgements in these three countries?

3. Different types of law reports in INDIA, U.S.A and U.K?

4. What are the similarities and dissimilarities between the judgement models of
INDIA,U.S.A and U.K?



RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LIT. REVIEW

Purely Doctrinal with the help of following strategies:
1. Primary and secondary sources (Journals, books and articles)
2. Newspapers and magazine clippings
3. Internet




TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Acknowledgement
2) Introduction
3) Judgement pronounced by the Supreme Courts of
(a)INDIA
(b)United States Of America
(c)United Kingdom
4) Analysis of the judgements
5) Conclusion
6) Bibliography




TENTATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Study of this project will be done through books, articles, journals,Law Reports and Internet
Database.


1. All India Reporter:
2. Supreme Court Cases:
3. Lexis Nexis USA:
4. Westlaw Journal
5. ManuPatra Online
6. United States Law Reporter
7. United Kingdom Law Reporter