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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT