Mayas Publications logo
Buy Books Buy journals

Journal Issues

Back To Archive
Comparative Analysis of Judicial System in United States and India with Reference to New Criminal Law in India
Parag Research Scholar, :Amit Ludri, Professor, Department of Law, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
Pages: 1-11 | First Published: 05 Sep 2025
Full text | Abstract | PDF | References | Request permissions

Abstract 

The importance of studying and examining the comparative criminal procedure of countries helps us in understanding the differences and similarities which exists in different countries it helps us to identify the different model of crime control and also helps in achieving the goal of providing justice to the people effectively and efficiently. In the present time when globalization has attained its peak it become very important to understand the legal system of different countries. In India judicial system we have one Supreme Court at national level which act as the protector of the Indian Constitution and at State level we have High Courts and at the various districts level we have districts courts. Unlike in India the judicial system in United States of America has a two-tier structure which is Federal and the State and the important fact is that both are independent to each other. This system is the result of US constitution which focus on the federal. There are some similarities between the criminal justice system in both the countries but there are differences also which makes difference in the justice delivery system in both the countries. A detailed study of analysis will help us to improve the criminal justice system in India which is very important for the nation.0 

Keywords- Globalization, Judicial System, Constitution

References

  1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

  2. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, § 173 (equivalent to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 154).

  3. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, ch. XIX (Framing of Charges); State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 S.C.C. 39.

  4. HARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023, ch. X (Order of Examination of Witnesses).
     State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 715.

  5. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 269 (Examination Of Accused).
     India Const. Art. 21; Hussainara Khatoon V. State Of Bihar, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1369.

  6. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Ch. Xx (Arguments); Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V. State Of Gujarat, (2004) 4 S.C.C. 158.

  7. Kranti Assocs. Pvt. Ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 S.C.C. 496.

  8. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Pt. Vi (Appeals, Reference And Revision).

  9. Public Access to Court Electronic Records, PACER: Federal Court Records, U.S. Courts, https://www.pacer.gov

  10. Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), U.S. COURTS, https://pacer.uscourts.gov 

  11. Comparing Federal & State Courts, U.S. COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts 

  12. iPleaders, Need for Reforms in the Indian Judiciary (Khyati Basant), IPLEADERS (blog), https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-for-reforms-in-the-indian-judiciary 

  13. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 230, REFORMS IN THE JUDICIARY: SOME SUGGESTIONS 14–16 (2009).

  14. Comparing Federal & State Courts, U.S. COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts 

  15. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018).
     INDIA CONST. art. 145; see also Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1 (India).

  16. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)
     Comparing Federal & State Courts, U.S. COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts 

  17. Law Commission of India, 14th Report on Reform of Judicial Administration (1958).
     State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601.
     Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. See also Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

  18.  Pleaders, Need for Reforms in the Indian Judiciary, (Khyati Basant), IPLEADERS (blog), https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-for-reforms-in-the-indian-judiciary/

  19.  MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 1.5(c) (AM. BAR ASS’N 2020) (permitting contingent fees in civil cases, subject to limitations); see also Charles Silver, A Restitutionary Theory of Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions, 76 CORNELL L. REV. 656, 659–61 (1991).

  20.  THE ADVOCATES ACT, No. 25 of 1961, INDIA; Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, ch. II, § II, r. 20 (prohibiting advocates from stipulating fees contingent on the results of litigation).
     Law Commission of India, Report No. 266: The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of the Legal Profession) 43–44 (2017).

  21.  INDIA CONST. art. 39A (Directive Principle mandating equal justice and free legal aid).
     Id.; see also LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, No. 39 of 1987, INDIA, §§ 12–13 (establishing entitlement and framework for legal aid).

  22.  Law Commission of India, Report No. 197: Public Prosecutors’ Appointments 37 (2006) (noting quality concerns in state-appointed counsels).

  23.  Constitution of India, Article 39A.

  24.  Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Act No. 39 of 1987).

  25.  National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Annual Report 2023.
     Marc Galanter & Jayanth K. Krishnan, "Bread for the Poor: Access to Justice and the Rights of the Needy in India," Hastings Law Journal 55 (2004): 789.

  26.  U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment.
     Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
     Legal Services Corporation Act, 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 2996.
     Rebecca L. Sandefur, Accessing Justice in the Contemporary USA: Findings from the

  27. Community Needs and Services Study (American Bar Foundation, 2014).
     Galanter & Krishnan, supra note 4.
     Sandefur, supra note 8.