ILNews

Professor to study India's legal system

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Over the next three years, a professor at an Indiana law school will be working on a study of India’s trial courts as part of a $261,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to a non-governmental association based in India.

Jayanth Krishnan of Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington, a professor and head of the India Initiative at the school’s Center on the Global Legal Profession, will be the project director for the study that will look at district courts in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh, as well as forums for alternative dispute resolution in India.

In a press release the law school issued Thursday, Krishnan said that between 30,000 and 40,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court of India and in the lower courts the number is likely in the tens of millions.

Krishnan has been traveling and was unable to answer questions in time for today’s deadline. However, during an interview for an article about the law school’s work with India for the Sept. 2-15, 2009, edition of Indiana Lawyer, Krishnan said it was considered typical for a case in India to last 10 years, and some cases last as long as 30 years.

He said there weren’t many options for the average Indian other than to wait it out, and that the backlog for cases has gotten so bad that it is just accepted that cases will take a long time to be resolved.

A year ago he also said there was little empirical research available about ADR in India, but the country’s government had been considering it as one solution to the backlog in the courts, and had been providing forums for ADR.

The National Centre for Advocacy Studies, which received the grant from the Ford Foundation for the 3-year study, is based in the state of Maharashtra, India. That organization is partnering with two other human rights organizations in India that focus on access to justice issues: the Centre for Social Justice, and Jagori Grameen.

Krishnan’s work with the study will contribute to the school’s Center on the Global Legal Profession, which includes internships and other partnerships with law schools and legal systems, such as China and South Korea.

A more in-depth article about Krishnan’s work with the study and the Center on the Global Legal Profession will appear in a future print edition of Indiana Lawyer.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT