We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
- District Judges are constitutional functionaries. Article 233 of the Constitution talks about it, and Art. 236 gives an expansive definition of who all are considered as a "district judge".
Now, do you mean they should be constitutional courts in terms of their appointments being made similar to a collegium system (not sure if that's a very good idea).
- District Judges have the power to enforce fundamental rights. Civil Suits for enforcement of fundamental rights are maintainable, though most prefer invoking the writ jurisdiction.
So, anything to do with this? Maybe you want them to wield the power to strike down the laws too (again, not sure if that's a good idea).
I can't believe I've put in more effort just in trying to decipher what the OP intends to say, than the OP made in their post. I'm waiting for my matter to be called out & have nothing better to do at the moment.