double spaced, and including footnotes

25 page paper, double spaced, and including footnotes, discuss the relevant issues mentioned below: compare the manner in which judges are chosen (at both the state and federal levels in the United States) and in India as well as the terms of office for the judges in both countries. If you have any insight as to why India eliminated jury trials in 1973 that would also be useful. (As you know they are required in many cases in the US under the Constitution.) discuss the problems facing the judiciaries in both countries. For example, in the US there are concerns with the politicization of the appointment process for federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, in the Senate. Some in the US have advocated eliminating the life terms for federal judges (serving in good behavior) and replacing them with fixed terms. In the US there are a number of specialized courts, such as the bankruptcy courts, the tax court and the court of international trade. Are there specialized courts in India? What are the problems you see with the Indian judiciary? My understanding is that although there is some evidence of corruption it is not widespread. I have also heard many criticisms that it takes an unduly long time to complete civil cases in India. Why is this? Is it a shortage of judges or some other factor? What role does the government play in litigation? In the US the Department of Justice prosecutes a wide range of both civil and criminal cases. US attorneys appointed by the president are responsible for representing the federal government in litigation in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In the United States with a few exceptions the Department of Justice represents the government in both civil and criminal litigation. Is this similar to Indian practice? With India as you noted the relationship between state and national courts is very different from the US federal system, which in many situations is parallel to the state courts. You could explain both systems in greater detail. In a democracy such as Indias it is difficult for outsiders to understand why federal court case files (including decisions?) are not publicly available. You might also want to explore how the Indian court system protects constitutional rights in India, such as those of women (which typically are not well-protected at all). Perhaps there is a parallel discussion of US protection of the Constitutional rights of minorities such as African-Americans, which until relatively recently were not well protected at all, particularly in the Southern states. It often seems to outsiders that the Indian justice department and the courts do a poor job of protection minority rights (such as those of Muslims and Sihks) or the rights of women more generally. You have undoubtedly learned about judicial review of legislation and various types of government actions by the Supreme Court in the United States. Is there a similar concept of judicial review of laws and government actions in India? Also, in many commonwealth nations the British Privy Council was effectively the supreme court in certain legal actions; was this ever the case in India after independence? Another possibility would be to look at how the courts of the two countries treat international treaties. As you know treaties that have received the advice and consent of the Senate are at the same hierarchial level as federal statutes. What is the situation in India? Blue Book Citation

The post double spaced, and including footnotes appeared first on My Assignment Online.