Revisiting Our Judicial System- Justice Accessibility & Reliability Perspective
Authored By: Ms. Anuja Jalan
LL.M. (Business Laws)
Table of Contents
Concept of Specialist Judiciary
3.1. Models of Specialisation
3.2. Advantages & Limitations of Specialist Judges over Generalist Judges
3.3. Expert Opinion v. Qualified Judge
4. Public-Judiciary Relationship
4.1. Global Efforts & Resultant
4.2. Indian Dimension of this Relationship
4.3. Measures to Bridge the Gap
5. Applicability and Suggestion for Incorporation of the Dimensions in Indian Judiciary
6. Concluding Remark
Law being all pervasive, has a relation with each and every aspect of human life. As law doesn’t exist in isolation, any of the field associated with human existence is not untouched by law. Likewise, Justice is a prominent purpose of law or it won’t be wrong to say that justice is the end which law seeks to find. Hence it is pertinent for us to make sure that there is access to justice to all in its real sense. Access to justice does not merely mean a court setup to sort relief. But it revolves around the two Rs i.e., Reachability & Reliance, which is all inclusive of the accessibility to courts or legal advisory, convenient procedure, time bound justice delivery, fairness, rule of law and the like attributes. Only by ensuring all these will the citizenry feel safe and secure. Thereby, attaining the purpose of a government’s establishment. In the Article, the study surrounds the same dimension of justice. Maintenance of public confidence is an inescapable facet which we will be looking at. Diversity and Community Relations Judges of England & Wales second the above proposition. It is an all-judges body to bridge the gap between the Judiciary and general public. Such a judicial system is in true sense fulfilling its purpose. On the other hand, the idea of specialist judge is relatively new but has a favourable impact on strengthening and facilitating our judicial goals.
Keywords: Justice Accessibility, Justice Reliability, Specialized Judiciary, Public-Confidence.
What do you expect to hear from a layman, when you ask him about his thoughts on the Indian Judicial System? We already know the most probable answer. It's very obvious as to what pushed me into taking this area of study. This is the most appropriate time to be thinking towards these perspectives of Indian Judiciary. Recent trends of reaction against judicial decisions narrates its story out-loud. A French novelist, Honore Balzec has said:
‘To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society. Smash the present of the institution, rebuild it in different basis…. But don’t stop believing in it.’
Quite a considerable number of efforts to tackle the pendency of cases and filling up the vacancies in the court can be observed. Also, immense emphasis on maintaining the independence of judiciary is also evident. Whereas, a huge gap exists if we talk about studies conducted to ensure the expertise of the judges or maintenance of the public confidence in the judicial system. Rightly noted by Victor Hugo that, “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”. This is an age of reformation. Each and every sphere of human life is undergoing transformation, which makes it even more pertinent to bring about an equating transformation in judiciary.
To deduce the most appropriate recourse for Indian setting, the researcher would be looking at few of the renowned and most successful judicial systems round the globe such as Finland and Sweden. Also, those will be taken into consideration which already has a working example of specialist judiciary and whose efforts in the direction of confidence building is unprecedented. The public at large is becoming more and more ratiocinate and is questioning the governmental actions where ever required. Such age of awareness necessitates a revisit towards the justice delivery system. And to make it armed enough to be able to effectively cater to this dynamic society.
With the sweeping change in the socio-economic milieu, there’s an inevitable need of specialist judges in the Indian Judiciary with simultaneous efforts towards ensuring public confidence in Justice Delivery.
This article reflects upon the need of specialized judges in India and enhancement of public confidence in the justice delivery system. The societal progression demands specialised knowledge and brilliance. Thereby the efficacy is enhanced. Legal education in India is being given due importance these days and improvisations are brought about. Where lawyers are becoming skilful, Judges too needs to be abreast. With each passing day, humankind is advancing and progressing. To address the resulting intricacies, such a judiciary is called for.
Indian Judiciary is counted amongst world’s most elaborate judicial systems, pertaining to the extensive legislative backing, huge number of legal professionals, and the necessary hierarchical arrangement of Courts. Given the population in India, the high pendency of cases and the vacancy of judges we need quantitative restructuring. But at the same time an equal attention is to be given to the quality of justice. Justice denotes towards a collaborative environment where each one is accorded with an equating portion of attributes associated to life. It can’t be interpreted in a restricted sense. The concept of Access to Justice encompasses not only a procedural & infrastructural setup to avail justice but also ensuring justice is done in its truest sense. Unless and until the bench knows the subject matter in and out, and understand the intricacies at its entirety, it can’t deliver a just ruling. Even though, it is done, it won’t instil confidence in general public, which should be a paramount concern. As rightly stated, that "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."
This Article is not going to trace back the evolution of the Judicial system in India. Rather, it will quickly look into the rational which was prevalent back in time towards access to justice and has it changed with time. In each and every ancient text whether it be that of Manu, Kautilya, Islamic Era or the British Era, there exist a commonality. Due reverence was given to the disparity in laws and customs of each community, it was made sure that the justice be done in accordance with the prevailing differential laws and customs. A Qazi, Pandit or so was made to judge if situations demanded. The rational then was the same as is today. To deliver justice in its true sense. So that the judge is able to address the issue at hand efficiently. Similarly, this transforming scenario has made it obligatory to be well equipped with such knowledge, as to be able to address all the concerns.
The elucidation has been sectioned into two parts to address the bi-dimensional theme of concern. Firstly, we’ll be dealing with the need of specialist judges in Indian Judiciary and subsequently, move on to bridge the gap between Public & Judiciary. But for the same we need to understand our Judiciary ‘as it is’ i.e., as is currently prevalent. Indian Judiciary has been systematised itself in a hierarchy. Not only that, but we have demarcated the subject matter a court deal with too. Ranging from family matters, civil or criminal matters, SC ST courts etc. But this is not it.
We have special courts like for Vyapam Scam related cases, setup from time to time tackle a specific class of cases. Also, India has adopted the tribunal system of Justice Administration, where according to the subject-matter separate tribunals are setup i.e., quasi-judicial bodies. It comprises of a judicial member and an expert member (who belongs to the field) necessarily. We have a long list of such tribunals dealing with subjects such as environment, tax, company law, Intellectual Property etc. Few of the recent cases have analysed the role of tribunals in justice administration. But here we are not concerned about the same. The question arises is that if we have such an elaborate system of courts and its tributaries, why are we even considering the specialist judge inclusion or how is it different?
Concept Of Specialist Judiciary
Not only in the field of law but each and every sphere of human existence is getting convoluted these days. Hyper-specialisation is not a trend but has become necessity for survival. This age of elucidation demands not only specialization in a distinguished theme but in specified sub-theme too.in the same lines Lawyers and advocates practise in a defined area of law these days. Thereby becoming somewhat experts in the opted area of practise. In India our emphasis on legal education has increased manifolds as compared to a few decades earlier. Where all such sweeping commutations are taking place, it is mandated to rebuild our judiciary on the same line. The scenario in the court of laws is such that the advocates project a better acquaintance to the subject matter than judges. Not only, judicial officers require timely updating themselves with laws but also with the changing dimensions of live sciences.
A lot of work has been done towards this concept in Western countries, but in India we seldom hear about it. And less and less people are acquainted with the surrounding debates. So far, we saw what kind of judicial system we have in India. And how they are insufficient to address the current and anticipated transformations in socio-economic milieu. Now let us delve even deeper and look out what does this concept has to offer.
Specialist judiciary has two dimensions. Firstly, the special court system, where the cases assigned are of the same class. Such as the special court set up under NIA, etc. Secondly, specialist judge's
system, where the judges are trained and made experts in a definite field or subject-matter such as the Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Health & Medicine etc. If we closely observe we already have the former category of courts in the form of special courts and tribunals. Our primary concern in this article is the latter category i.e., specialist judges.
Consultative Council of European Judges has recognised the concept and released a detailed document opining on the same. It has categorically emphasised on the adoption of specialist judges. But not to any detrimental effect on generalist judges. It states that it is advisable to keep both the systems together and both has a distinct relevance and place in the society. In facilitation of the same many of the European Nations have included such models in thier justice administration systems, in one way or the other. Nations such as Netherland Sweden Denmark etc have shown exemplary moves on this direction. And it is undoubted that these countries hold the top most places in the justice delivery ranking.
3.1. Models of Specialisation:
Depending upon the varying requirements of the country an appropriate model of specialist judiciary can be adopted. The nature of cases influx, the quantity of a specific kind of disputes, increased technicality associated to a field, urge of addressing the complexity much more effectively all these are to be encompassed prior to re-designing the judicial systems on the lines of specialization.
The categorisation can be numerous based on the geography, subject matter, quantity of cases instituted, population of the state, stage of adjudication, application on an identified group, service to be offered etc. But each of them will have to be built on one of the following models, with alteration and combinations best suited.
Creation of a separate court system for each of the prominent subject- matter. In this an entire segregation can be observed and there is no overlapping between the two or more court systems. Each one deals with its own jurisdictional matters. Such a structure is seen in Germany, where each specialised court system is independent of others and is separately funded and organised.
Creation of separate branch of court or bench in the same court system or premise. It is self-explanatory that such a system is where there exists a general judiciary and based on the specificity of the subject matter a special division of court is setup either permanently or on a temporary basis. Staff etc remains largely same but allocation of cases brings about the difference. Such a system is practised in India, Canada, United States and is commonly found in common law countries. It is identical to the civil, criminal and family division of courts in India. This demarcation can be administratively or internally made, at the same time can be done through statutes, like the Scheduled Castes 7 Scheduled Tribes Courts.
Another model which is an offshoot of (b), i.e., the Tribunal System also exists, where the procedural requirements are liberalised and is aims at quick and more of an informal disposal of matters. Such bodies are not necessarily considered as courts in strict sense but as quasi-judicial in nature.
The latter two models are very much in practise in Indian Judicial System. There is enough material available about the same. Therefore, we are not concerned about these models in this article. Now let us look at the model which is of prime importance as far as our study is concerned.
Incorporating special knowledge in the judges itself. Developing a team of expert judges in the identified emergent fields. In this system, a shift from generalist judges to specialist judges can be seen. Judges are experts in judging, but in addition to this skilful expertise, importunity exists of special understanding of a class of cases. Hence, this model enables a better disposal of growing particular kind of cases. It is not pertinent to train each and every judicial member to be specialist in one of the fields but its vice versa, i.e., for each of such technical field there should be some trained judges.
Although examples are few but countries have started adopting this model as and when required. Such as German Rapporteur. These Rapporteurs are trained both in law and the allotted subject matter. He is put on the bench with other judges to appreciate all the technical and legal aspects associated. Thereby he makes a report on the application of law and application of technical knowledge thereby, suggesting the course of action. Taking forward from this the bench as a whole pronounced the decision.
3.2. Advantages & Limitations of Specialist Judges over Generalist Judges:
It will be a utopian state if just advantages existed, to the total negation of disadvantages associated to a concept or phenomena. Therefore, earlier to adoption of any of such systems in India it is pertinent to look into the positives and negatives it has to offer.
Briefly putting together the advantages; it in enhances the efficiency, public confidence, quality decision, rational, uniformity, and predictability in like cases. On the other hand, rules-out the arbitrary or blind judgements and any dis-satisfaction on the art of parties
It creates a conducive environment for more and more developmental activities as citizenry is confident that a sound legal backing exists. The recent Ease of Doing Business ranking has revealed that India has made meagre improvements in the contract enforcement criteria or judicial aspects associated with it. And work needs to be done in the direction. The rational remains same i.e., creating a conducive environment. It has two-way benefit primarily, as it attracts much more popular participation and secondly, increases public trust.
Not only for a better knowledge of complexity but it also fosters a greater understanding of the case-parties and their position with respect to the peculiar environment they belong.
Flipping the coin exposes the limitation. There are possibilities of specialist judges developing bias, as their area of work becomes highly familiar. Also, this compartmentalization tends to narrow down and restrict the perspective of judges. It strikes at the unity of the judiciary too, and a sense of dominance might pop-up in the long run.
3.3. Expert Opinion v. Qualified Judge:
Expertise is required in two kinds of situation. Firstly, where a skill is required such a handwriting or fingerprint analysis or post-mortem conduction, ballistic etc. And another is the expertise in a particular field involving a scientific or technical knowledge such as Patent, Machine Learning, Medical etc. It is not advisable for the judges to step in the shoes of the first type of experts but the second type.
In Forest Range officer v. P. Mohammad Ali, it was stated by the court that expert opinion is opinion evidence only and it doesn’t affect decision-making compulsorily.
There’s a need of acceptance, that there exists a considerable difference; when a judgement is passed based on an expert opinion and the when both the epistemic competence and legal knowledge both is held by a single decision maker. There is no doubt as to which decision will supersede another.
Our first research question revolves around the conundrum that would there be a difference in the decision by generalist court and that given by a specialist court. Categorically stated as: “when faced with competing, sincere, and roughly equally well credentialed experts ... a nonexpert will on average do no better in selecting which scientific expert to believe than one would by tossing a coin”. Brewer calls it as a two-hat model of decision making, where a judge is equipped with both; the knowledge of law and the cognition about scientific aspect of case. Although the current legal system of India aspects a judge to be all-wise. It is far from reality and is equally impossible to attain. Better put, jack of all trades, expert of none. We have to strike back at this notion by the Judicial Institution recognising such fields and then training its members. Thereby, we’ll get an army of judicial officers who are on one hand generalist and on the other possess special knowledge in a particular field. Such a system will be capable enough to address the requirements of the changing socio-economic milieu, with no additional burden on an individual perse.
It has been pointed out by experts' time and again that not only law makes a case complex but the unique and distinguishable facts of each of them tends to enhance this complexity.
To conclude that a country needs such re-structuring there has to be some deciding parameters. As very aptly put by Edward Cazalet in his article, about the need of such a model in a country can be ascertained by investigating in to some prime questions. The most prominent ones are;
“1. Have there been markedly inconsistent judgments or decisions in this area? If so, have inconsistencies led to a proliferation of litigation or, conversely, to a general reluctance to bring disputes before the courts?
2. Are there justified complaints from court users and other interested organizations or concerns internally about how certain types of cases are handled or how long cases take?”
Therefore, a comprehensive study is required prior to concluding on adoption or rejection of the theme of concern.
The above provided questions cannot be effectively answered unless and until a duly designed pilot project is conducted in Indian setup and intricate details are sort. A sound proposition has been made by Lawrence Baum in his Paper that there doesn't exist a calculous to measure search behavioural attitudes of society at large, therefore an experiment is inevitable.
Elaborately enumerated by Prof. Miller, the components of a good Judge; a judicial temperament, cognition and education, ethics, experience and skill, observance of natural justice principles, revered and patient audience, timely disposal amongst others. All this sparks not only confidence in a judge (institutional level) but most importantly accelerates the public confidence and trust in the judiciary as a whole.
The change in the socio-economic milieu is made obvious by the attitudinal difference in people. It was a rarity that people questioned and deliberated over a pronouncement of the court, but in current times, it has become a routine. People are applying their brains to the judicial decision and registering their contradictions too. In such times, it is more pertinent than earlier mend the public-judiciary relations.
Often, we see that the construction and portrayal of judgements delivered are wrong. Newspapers make blunders in communicating them to general public. And this is the juncture where we can trace the dis-trust in judiciary lies.
4.1. Global Efforts & Resultant:
Various countries have preceded us in setting examples in this context. One such example is of Diversity and Community Relations Judges, England & Wale. Although the primary object behind constitution of his body is ensuring equal and proportional representation of all the communities in England and Wales in the Judiciary, but it also works towards bridging the gap between this elite institution and general folk. For the same, the judges voluntarily take up the responsibility and try to reach out to the citizenry.
The purpose is to make them understand the complexities and nature of work done at the same hand to have a direct acquaintance of the public situations.
The Danish Legal System has proved to be a torch bearer in this context. All the records are publicly available for scrutiny and judges too go through an extensive quality ensuring procedures.
Finnish Citizens highly confide in their judicial system and it has kept open for stakeholders to give their representation in decisions bringing about a considerable impact. This results in a feeling of inclusion of the public at large in the decision-making procedure.
The Prison Reforms in Sweden is well known to the world community. They do not believe in penitence but in rehabilitation and therefore, the condition of prisons is excellent.
All this can be substantiated by the studies conducted by various International Bodies time and again. The ranking of the above provided nations have been in the top five
4.2. Indian Dimension of this Relationship:
Having mentioned that, how does Indian mindset and approach towards Judiciary differs? We have since ages put judicial bodies and judges at a high pedestal. It used to be so high that no one ever questioned any of their acts or even maintained due respect for the same. Even today such outlook hasn’t vanished entirely. Old school people still revere and regard it identically. But the question to ponder upon s that does this reverence necessarily mean trust and confidence in our judiciary? Are people likely to move to courts with their minutest of problems? More and more out of court settlements or the avoidance to book the wrongdoer, suggests against it.
It is sceptical in modern era to place status and reliance in the same basket; they do not mean one and the same. High esteem doesn’t ensure high public reliance. Hence this dynamism requires to clear this blurry vision and look forth this hazy assumption. The increasing protests and dharanas, speaks out loud that reformations are inevitable.
Therefore, public confidence and judicial system ranking seems to have directly proportional relationship.
In the words of Justice Manmohan Sarin, the need and urgency of positive attempts to bridge this gap is clearly reflected. He says that “if people lose faith in the judiciary, then that stage of dissatisfaction is probably not curable.
What is required is that the systems should be made more and more affective as well as transparent to all the stakeholders involved in the justice delivery system. All this is achievable through proper court administration that is driven by innovative and fast rendering initiatives. It is imperative that fairness and impartiality should be visible to all”.
A deviating school of thought exists, which professes that there's no need of giving weightage to public opinion on the judiciary, and it's the task of enforcement agencies to execute the court’s sentence. But the researcher opines that gradually with loss of public trust in this exclusive institution, there is loss of authority too. And eventually unruly state elements would emerge in resistance.
Another reason for reduction in the public trust is the lack of institutional cohesion. There are catena of cases and incidents, where the underlying cracks have come-out bare. Such incidents have lasting impact on peoples’ opinion and ones made is difficult to turned otherwise.
The researcher in the Article has limited its scope and is not dealing with the judgements of the court of law. It would require a separate comprehensive study. Therefore, the study aims at outlining the existing problem and suggesting viable remedies to the same.
4.3. Measures to Bridge the Gap:
Following are few of the measures, we can adapt in India for addressing the question of gap in public-judiciary relation:
Opting for media judge or spokesperson: it has been brought to practise by Finland, Netherlands, Sweden Norway etc. In this Neo-Democratic regime, the right of information can’t be curbed nor media hubs be extensively tutored. But irresponsible reporting is a burning concern and a prominent reason behind misunderstanding of rulings. Therefore, such media judges can effectively convey the first-hand information to public.
Instead of media judges, a special committee can be constituted to take care of such matters.
There can be press conferences and official press releases to convey the true meaning of the judgement affecting public at large. The typical language and longevity are a hurdle towards understanding the judgements pronounced by laymen.
The judgments must be streamlined and written in such a manner as is commonly understood by people. At the end of the day t is for the people to read and they are the ones immediate affected.
Bodies such as DCRJs of England and Wales can be designed in Indian setup. It is high time to blow at the notion that judges should keep themselves distant form public to evade any kind of influences. The changing socio-economic milieu demands a consonance between the two actors. Unless and until these judicial bodies come together and in close vicinity of the citizenry, the sense of belongingness would be missing.
The punishment techniques also need to be reformed in India. It has started to change but still requires active participation from the decision makers. It is a key to public-satisfaction too. Meaningless punishments have lost their impact on wrong doers and also created a mockery by the ratiocinating individuals. Therefore, more of a personalised punishment mechanism is required. Although it needs an all-new study on the theme.
One of the steps our Indian Judiciary has already taken is by allowing video-conferencing of court proceedings. It would help the general public to connect to the system. And will be in a better position to comprehend and acknowledge the complex nature of work done by them.
Applicability And Suggestion For Incorporation Of The Dimensions In Indian Judiciary
The bidimensional study is not a bi-partisan study. The motive behind amalgamating these two aspects of Justice Delivery System is to convey that both the concepts of specialist judiciary and public confidence are relative to each other. it will not be an exaggeration to conclude that there exists a reciprocity between them. An outcome often escapes our eyesight, that is, the outlook of the remedy seeker, which would be affected positively towards the judiciary, when he’ll assess the decisions via application of these two approaches. Although there is no defined technique to weigh and measure the difference in the quality of both the rulings, but the ones on which it is directly impacting could fathom the qualitative aspect of it. Thereby, contributing towards the second dimension of this article directly i.e., public confidence. They are directly proportional.
It is human psychology to expect a much fairer and efficient outcome when adjudicated by an epistemically capable judge than with just legal competence. Therefore, even though it might have meagre effect on justice delivery, such a mechanism would bridge the gap and mend the public-judiciary relationship. Summed up by Cf Posner: "We think of a specialist not just as someone who knows a lot about a subject, but as someone to whom we are willing to entrust important decisions about it that affect us.".
Therefrom, Specialization is not advisable in all the branches of cases, but a sieved approach is recommended to filter such complex subject matters, which requires special cognition.
Before making a sound decision it is wise to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis. As it will be different for different country settings, peculiar assessment for India is to be done. The researcher suggests after looking into the costs involved and the benefits fetched, not to create a new specialized Court System with. Specialized Judges. On the contrary we can opt for an amalgamated Court system. where both general and special Judges, work in conformity Towards the proposed field of expertise. The solution lies between the two extremes, a generalist judiciary and tribunalized one. Also, between the knowledge of bare minimum i.e., limited to legal intricacies and being omniscient. Standing on any of the edges would prove fatal, therefore, one will have to shift towards the fulcrum for a sound and perspective justice delivery system.
As also highlighted by Edward K. Cheng that there is not much cost involved in such a model. There is no need of a complete restructuring but only some internal renovations are required. He pressured over the opinion specialization, which already exists in judges, but the right allotment is required. It won't involve hefty costs and the benefit would accelerate at a high rate.
It is pertinent to note that, a disadvantage lies in the expert tribunal system or the specialist courts. The biasness of the expert is a possibility as he/she belongs to the same intellectual fora. There are possibilities of this bias to develop in specialist judges with time but in the former it would exist from the nascent stage.
Having done all the analysis, to roll-out the specialist approach some technical planning would be required.
Firstly, choosing the appropriate combinational model;
Secondly, identifying the areas of expertise required;
Thirdly, a system where new entrants are at liberty to opt for desired qualification & a voluntary opting mechanism is created for old members;
Fourthly, designing the Qualification and Training programme;
Fifthly, Induction in the System.
The list is not exhaustive but indicative. There are other sub-steps too which prior to any of such incorporation we need to look into. One such area is to decide the number of special judges required in Indian judicial system. Fo the same, we will have to look into the recent trends of influx of cases in various technically or socially advanced subject matters. Also, that this article doesn't undermine the need of non-legal expertise or service providers such as that of handwriting experts, footprint experts, ballistic experts, hey, psychologist. Etcetera. Instead, this article aims at highlighting the advantages of the two-hat model of adjudication over other systems for reasons already discussed.
In India the advancements have necessitated the insistence on the epistemic competence. It is not viable to stick to the status quo. In India it's time to bring about some reformations, they might not suit at once, but can be adapted for a greater good in time to come. Hence, the researcher contemplates to offer practical solutions rather than fancy full suggestion towards the problem at hand. With huge advancements and developments in every sphere of our lives, by no rational one can outrightly negate the pros of the dealt with concepts. Anticipation and preparedness can be the game changer. And India being a country looked-up to, by world at large, must be well armed. Our ancestors have always been prospective & we are duty bound to take the legacy forward.
7.1. Research Papers & Articles:
James R. Dillon “EXPERTISE ON TRIAL”, THE COLUMBIA SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW, VOL. XIX SPRING 2018.
Arti K Rat, “SPECIALIZED TRIAL COURTS: CONCENTRATING EXPERTISE ON FACT”, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 877 (2002)
Herbert Kritzer, Where Are We Going: The Generalist vs. Specialist Challenge, 47 Tulsa L. REV. 51 (2011)
William Steel, Judicial Specialisation in a Generalist Jurisdiction: Is Commercial Specialisation within the High Court Justified, 46 VICTORIA U. WELLINGTON L. REV. 307 (2015).
Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1 (1989).
Harold H. Bruff, Specialized Courts in Administrative Law, 43 ADMIN. L. REV. 329 (1991)
Diane P. Wood, Judges of All Trades: Further Thoughts on Specialized Courts, 99 JUDICATURE 11 (2015)
Edward K. Cheng, The Myth of Generalist Judge, 61(3) Stan.L.REV.519(2008)
Lawrence Baum, Probing the Effect of Judicial Specialization, 58 DUKE L.J. 1667(2009)
Chad M. Oldfather, Judging, Expertise, and the Rule of Law, 89 WASH. U.L. Rev. 847(2012)
7.2. Online Sources:
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS JUDICIARY, UNITED KINGDOM, Diversity and Community Relations Judges | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, (Jan 19,2021).
LawTeacher, November 2013, 'India Has the World’s Second Largest Legal Profession', LAWTEACHER.NET, (January 2021) https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/indian-law/india-has-the-worlds-second-largest-legal-profession-indian-law-essay.php?vref=1.
World Justice Project, WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 | World Justice Project, (Jan, 2021)
What the Data Says About Criminal Justice Systems Around the World, February 13, 2019, What the Data Says About Criminal Justice Systems Around the World | World Justice Project, (Jan 15, 2021).
Nomad Research Team, The 5 Best Countries for Judicial Independence and Rule of Law | Nomad Capitalist, (Jan 20, 2021).
OPINION (2012) NO. 15 OF THE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES ON THE SPECIALISATION OF JUDGES, Paris, 5-6 November 2012, TE07011225 (coe.int), (Jan 19, 2021).
Annual Conference on mapping Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System 15.10.2016 & 16.10.2016, National Judicial Academy, P-995 Programme Report.pdf (nja.nic.in), (Jan 19, 2021).
Oxford Handbook Online