Court Structure in General
Bascially, there are two branches of Law : Civil and Criminal. In a civil proceeding, the aim is to recover property or money, and to order compensation or grant relief; while in a criminal proceeding, the aim is to punish the offender and the proceeding is always between the State and the accused.
The Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure elabolrate on the details of the manner or procedure to be followed in getting redress. Technically speaking, civil and criminal jurisdication are different from each other, and there are really speaking separate Courts to deal with the two. Howeverm, in many cases, civil and criminal jurisdication is combined, and they are known under a name which combines both the capacities (and are often vested in the same person) such as :

1. Court of District and Sessions Judge (district level)
2. Court of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge (taluka level)
3. Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (local)

At the state level, we have the High Court and right on top is the Supreme Court. Every court has its limits of jurisdication (except the Supreme Court) which may be either pecuniary or to do with the subject. For example, lower courts cannot try a case exceeding a certain monetary value. Again, some suits can be filed only in specified courts, e.g. public trusts can be taken up by the District Judge only.
The Court of Sessions is the highest criminal court of orginal jurisdiction. It deals with all types of criminal cases, and is usually located at the district level, although in some big cities, the city as a unit itself is declared as a sessions division, e.g. Bombay, Pune, Ahmedabad etc. This court can try any offence and impose any sentence authorised by law, for a particlar offence, but the death sentence passed by it, must be confirmed by the High Court.
Similarly, the District (Civil) Court, within its area jurisdication has no limits, either pecuniary or subjectwise. However, only the High Court and Supreme Court can issue writs; the former under Article 226 and the latter under Article 32 of the Constitution. This is the general structure of the system of courts. Now in addition, there are some special courts, which deal with specific subjects, e.g. family courts, juvenile courts, labour courts, special tribunals concerning agricultural land, administrative tribunals, Income-tax tribunals, Co-operative courts, etc.

Family Courts
Family Courts came into existence after a Central Act, in 1984. The idea underlying the setting up of family courts was that conflicts and disputes between members of a family should be handled in a tactful way as it is a delicate matter, affecting the relationships of the people involved. It was seen that family disputes when taken to the ordinary court, only suceeded in increasing the tensions in their personal relationships.
So, the idea evolved out of a need to take a different approach in disputes concerning the family. The family court is usually meant to be held in an informal atmosphere and can be held at any mutually agreeable place. These courts deal with litigation concerning marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, property settlements, and any other proceeding concerning a family.
The approach/role of the lawyers/counsellors in the family court is to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement.

Lok Adalats (Peoples’ Courts)
Lok Adalats (or ‘Mobile Courts’) as it is also known are started with the aim of taking justice out of the courts of the people. In other words, it emphasises out-of court settlement, mutual consent and conciliation, and expense-free and expeditious justice. It goes a step ahead of manmade laws and tries to evoke the eternal law of love, through which, reason, and fair compromise are sought to be brought about, without the clients barbouring ill feelings towards each other.
The approach of the Lok Adalat is a preventive one rather than a curative one - in the sense that it deals with cases through timely counselling even before they are filed in courts.
As it stands, the inordinate delays in courts have resulted in a huge backlog of cases, which are subjected to long and tortuous judicial procedure and systems. According to Mr. Justice Desai, there are approximately 15 lakh cases pending in the High Courts and 1,50,000 in the Supreme Court. Assuming that no fresh case is filed hereafter, the courts would still clear this backlog only in 1977.
Abraham Lincoln, while advocating out-of-court settelement, had once said. "Discourage litigation, persuade your neighbour to compromise, whenever you can, and point out how no winner is a real loser in expenses and time."
The difference between a court and Lok Adalat (at least till recently) was that the former was a statutory body of the state, while the latter was a purely voluntary effort, where a litigant does not have to spend on the proceedings. It was non statutory and did not have the power to ‘summon’ anybody, though with the New Bill things have changed a bit. 1
Voluntary organisations, lawyers, social workers and law students play important roles in the functioning of lok adalats.
Lok Adalats were started with the dual aim of :

1. Relieving courts of thier heavy workload; and
2. development and alternative dispute settlement mechanism.

Way back in 1978, the first Lok Adalat was held in Kalyan, near Bombay, as an experiment. Later, the same year, another such court was held nearby Bhiwand, Maharashtra, it was tried at Gopalpura in Rajasthan. With the assistance of a lawyer and two social workers, the legal advice board registered 28 cases. Some 500 people collected there out by curiously to witness the proceeding presided over by Mr. Bhagwati himself and attended also by then Chief Justice of Rajasthan. Of the 28 cases, 26 were settled that day.
However, Mr.Bhagwati’s commmendable beginning did not make much headway until 1981, when Mr. Justice M.P. Thakkar (then Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court) picked up the thread and held these Adalats every fortnight, in different parts of the state. They dealt mainly with cases pending in courts. Within a short time, this became a movement in Gujarat, and gradually picked up in other states as well. 1 Lok Adalats became increasingly popular (as can be seen in box below). In particular, they made a tremendous impact in solving a large number of motor accident compensation cases. But in some states, they degenerated into a mere ‘tamasha’. In one case, the high court sent instructions asking magistrates, and sub-judges to keep cases that were almost complete or in which a compromise had already been reached, ready for the Lok Adalat. At this, one district judge remarked: ‘Paki Pakaayi Khaan Chahtey Hain .’ (They want cooked food)
The district authorities in this state, got hundreds of frivolous complainsts registered by the police and these were disposed of by the Lok Adalat, which announced at the end of the day that it had settled a few hundred cases! Similarly, in another state, a few hundred truck drivers were challaned the day before the Lok Adalat was due to sit. The drives were produced, a ‘compromise’ was struck and the police agreed to release them if they paid half the fine originally sought. There is too mcuh of padding of case lists and too pomp and show in conducting the Lok Adalats. Recalls Rajinder Sachar, a retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, ‘When I held a Lok Adalat as Chief Justice, I was told that a list of about 350 cases would be put before me. When I made enquiries, I found that in about a hundred cases, the parties had already agreed to a compromise. I ordered those cases to be taken off.
Again unfortunately more Lok Adalats are being organised in cities and disticts than in the interior parts of the country, where the real problem lies. Land disputes abound in villages and legal aid there can go a long way in generating social action and change at the grassroot level.
Recently Lok Adalats were a subject of controversy, after the passing of the Legal Services Authorities Bill in Parliament, to legalise Lok Adalats. On the one hand, there were those who felt that granting a statutory status and thereby institutionising Lok Adalats will serve to make them more permanent, accountable, thereby enhancing their functioning, while on the other, the opponents to the Bill felt that the more you make them legalistic the more they will take the form of law courts and thus lose their essence. (Justice Desai).
All said and done however, there is no question that Lok Adalats have contributed and are contributing much needed legal aid and assistance in different parts of the country and are an excellent medium for obtaining legal assistance, for people who have no other resources to fall back on, such as influence or money power.

[index]