In this series we bring you perspectives from law librarians in different countries on simple legal questions. We hope to give you insights into jurisdictions which may be less well-known to you and, who knows, to spark new ideas for research or teaching! Our heartfelt thanks to contributors from the IALL community and beyond. If you have ideas for topics we could cover or would like to contribute to the series, please get in touch with the blog editor, Rebecca Bergstrøm
Supreme Court of India
By Sindlingappa Huded, Assistant Librarian, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
About the Court
The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body under the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court came into existence on 26 January 1950 with the coming into force of the Constitution. After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the old Parliament House. The Court moved into a new building in 1958.
The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges – leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. Considering the increase in workload, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009 and 34 in 2019 (current strength). Today, the Judges sit in Benches of two and three and come together in larger Benches of 5 and more (Constitution Bench) to decide any conflicting decisions between benches of the Supreme Court or any substantial questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English. The practice and procedure of working of the Registry on the judicial side is regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure.
The Supreme Court of India is in New Delhi, the capital city of India.
Link to the Court website: https://www.sci.gov.in/
Decisions of the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India’s website offers free access to all its judgments since 1950. Users can easily search for judgments using various criteria, including diary number, case number, judge’s name, judgment date, or free text search. In addition to judgments, the website also provides access to other useful resources, such as cause lists, case status updates, daily orders, office reports, caveats, and display boards, all available under the ‘Services’ tab.
Apart from this, the court also has eSCR, a repository of judgments pronounced by various High Courts in the country. This portal is designed for various stakeholders to find similar judgments based on their requirements. The most important feature of this portal is that it has a free text search engine, which calls out judgments based on the given keyword in the search box provided. Various other filter criteria include High Court, Act, Sections, names of parties, judge’s name, and judgment date, etc. A combination of any of the search criteria can be used to filter results. The embedded filtering feature allows for further filtering of available results, thus adding value to the search.[1] This also offers available judgments in non-English languages as well.
[1] Judgements in Electronic Form : Digital SCR – Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners
Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Court of Final Appeal
By Yvonne YU, Senior Judiciary Executive (Legal Reference & Library), The Judiciary Libraries, Hong Kong
About the court
The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) is the final appellate court within the court system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. It plays an important part in the development of the common law in Hong Kong.
The court was established on 1 July 1997, upon the commencement of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484). It replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London as the highest appellate court in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.
Link to the website of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/home/index.html
Decisions of The Court of Final Appeal
Recent CFA judgments in decided cases handed down within the current or last month can be found on the “Recent Judgments” page at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/work/cases/recent/index.html .
There is a separate database of CFA judgments handed down since 1 January 2015, please refer to the “Archived Judgments” page at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/work/cases/archive/index.html
The CFA judgments are also uploaded to the Legal Reference System (“LRS”) at https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ . Besides, the relevant written judgments of public hearing cases in the lower courts, including the Court of Appeal of the High Court, the Court of First Instance of the High Court, the District Court, the Family Court and the Lands Tribunal, are also uploaded to the LRS on the Hong Kong Judiciary’s website.
Chinese and English are the official languages of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Judiciary has all along been adopting a pragmatic approach in dealing with the translation of judgments. It is considered that translation of judgments should be carried out to meet the needs of the judges, the legal profession, the litigants and the public at large.
The fundamental principle is that the authentic and the only authentic version of a judgment is the one in the language in which the judgment is delivered, be it English or Chinese. The translated version of a judgment has no legal status as a judgment.[1]
To facilitate the work of judges and the legal profession, for some judgments which are of great importance, including many of the judgments of the CFA, the whole judgment will be translated from English judgments into Chinese, or vice versa; for majority of cases, translating the judgments in full is not necessary. Translation of excerpts from such judgments should suffice.
[1] Translation of Judgments into Chinese
This Blog contains entries by members of the International Association of Law Libraries on issues germane to the Association’s areas of focus. Views expressed in an individual entry only represent the views of the author, and not those of the International Association of Law Libraries or the author’s employer.