The Indian legal system explained

The structure is integrated: there is one hierarchy applying both Union and state law, unlike the United States where separate federal and state systems run in parallel. A single district judge hears cases arising under central Acts and state Acts alike.

At district level, civil cases begin before civil judges and district judges depending on value, and criminal cases before judicial magistrates and sessions judges depending on the offence's seriousness. Below and alongside sit specialised forums: consumer commissions, family courts, labour courts, rent controllers and revenue courts.

High Courts sit above them — 25 of them, some covering several states or union territories. They hear appeals, exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, and issue writs under Article 226. For most people with a constitutional grievance, the High Court is the realistic forum, not the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court sits at the apex with original jurisdiction in disputes between governments, writ jurisdiction under Article 32, appellate jurisdiction, and a wide discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal under Article 136. Its decisions bind every court in India under Article 141.

Tribunals handle specialised areas — the National Green Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the National Company Law Tribunal, armed forces and administrative tribunals — with appeals generally lying to the High Court or Supreme Court.

Pendency is the system's defining practical problem. Tens of millions of cases are pending across all levels, and civil matters routinely run for years. Any realistic assessment of a legal remedy in India has to weigh that, which is a large part of why mediation, Lok Adalats and consumer commissions matter so much.

On 1 July 2024, three new codes replaced the colonial-era framework: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code of 1860; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act.

Much of the substance carried over with renumbering, which is itself a practical problem — a great deal of online material, and many people's memory of 'Section 420' or 'Section 302', now refers to superseded numbering.

Notable changes include statutory timelines intended to speed proceedings, expanded provision for electronic records and digital evidence, videography requirements for search and seizure, provision for trial in absentia of proclaimed offenders, community service as a penalty for some offences, and a new offence framework around organised crime and terrorism.

Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried under the old codes, so both frameworks will run in parallel for years.

The codes have been substantially criticised — over the speed of their passage, expanded police custody provisions and the disruption of a century and a half of settled case law — and aspects continue to be litigated.

A police station must register an FIR for a cognisable offence. Refusal is not lawful, and the remedies are concrete: send the complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, who must register it or direct an investigation; or approach a magistrate, who may order registration.

A zero FIR can be registered at any police station regardless of where the offence occurred, and is then transferred to the station with jurisdiction. 'Not our area' is not a lawful reason to send you away, and this matters most in exactly the situations where delay is worst.

The Supreme Court's arrest guidelines are binding. You are entitled to be told the grounds of arrest; to have a friend or relative informed; to consult a lawyer; to be examined medically; and to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours excluding travel time. Women cannot ordinarily be arrested after sunset and before sunrise except in specified circumstances and with a woman officer present.

For offences punishable by less than seven years, the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar require police to issue a notice of appearance rather than arrest automatically, and require magistrates to record reasons before authorising detention.

You cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself under Article 20(3). A confession to a police officer is not admissible in evidence.

Where police refuse to act or act improperly, the escalation route runs through the SP, the state Police Complaints Authority, the State or National Human Rights Commission, and ultimately a High Court writ petition.

Consumer commissions are the most accessible formal forum in the country. Cases can be filed online through e-daakhil at district, state or national level depending on value, no lawyer is required, and fees are modest. This covers defective goods, deficient services, e-commerce, telecom, banking, insurance, travel and medical services.

Lok Adalats are statutory settlement forums whose awards have the force of a civil decree and are not appealable. National Lok Adalats held periodically dispose of very large numbers of compoundable cases, and court fees are refunded on settlement.

Mediation is increasingly institutionalised, and commercial disputes above a threshold require pre-institution mediation before a suit can be filed.

Sector ombudsmen provide free, binding routes outside the courts: the RBI Ombudsman for banks, NBFCs and payment systems; the Insurance Ombudsman for policy and claim disputes; and SEBI's SCORES for securities matters. Each requires you to complain to the institution first and wait a prescribed period.

The Right to Information Act is an underrated dispute tool: where a government department is sitting on a file, a ₹10 RTI asking for the file's current status, the officer holding it and the reasons for delay frequently produces movement that repeated complaints do not.

Free legal aid through District Legal Services Authorities covers representation, not just advice, and every district has one. NALSA's helpline is 15100.