Question map
With reference to the 'Gram Nyayalaya Act', which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases. 2. The Act allows local social activists as mediators/reconciliators. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Explanation
The correct answer is option B (2 only).
Gram Nyayalayas are deemed to be a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class with both civil and criminal jurisdiction[2], which makes statement 1 incorrect. The Act does not restrict them to hearing only civil cases.
Regarding statement 2, the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 does allow for local social activists to act as mediators or reconciliators in dispute resolution. This provision is part of the Act's framework to make justice accessible at the grassroots level and utilize community resources for amicable settlements. The Act was enacted to provide access to justice to citizens at their doorsteps and ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen due to social, economic or other disabilities[3], which aligns with the use of local mediators.
Therefore, only statement 2 is correct, making option B the right answer.
Sources- [1] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1809619
- [3] Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 38: Lok Adalats and Other Courts > GRAM NYAYALAYAS > p. 379
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis is a classic 'Definition vs. Feature' question. Statement 1 is a direct test of your standard text (Laxmikanth) knowledge regarding the 'Judicial Magistrate' status. Statement 2 is a 'Spirit of the Law' question—if the aim is doorstep justice, local mediators are a logical inclusion. Trust the standard book for the hard limit (jurisdiction) and the Act's objective for the soft feature (activists).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act (2008), are Gram Nyayalayas empowered to hear civil cases?
- Statement 2: Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act (2008), are Gram Nyayalayas empowered to hear criminal cases?
- Statement 3: Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act (2008), does the Act allow local social activists to act as mediators or conciliators in Gram Nyayalayas?
- Explicitly states Gram Nyayalayas have both civil and criminal jurisdiction.
- Says they are deemed a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class to settle petty disputes at village level — implying authority to hear civil cases.
States that the Gram Nyayalaya 'shall be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class' and names the presiding officer (Nyayadhikari).
A student can combine this with the basic fact that Judicial Magistrates primarily exercise criminal jurisdiction to infer Gram Nyayalayas likely have criminal powers (thus not limited to civil-only).
Repeats the feature that Gram Nyayalayas are constituted as a Judicial Magistrate of the first class and located at intermediate panchayat level to dispose of cases locally.
Using the common legal-role pattern that magistrates handle criminal trials/summaries, a student could suspect Gram Nyayalayas include criminal jurisdiction and therefore are not restricted to civil cases.
Notes that various local/panchayat courts historically try 'petty civil and criminal cases', giving an example pattern of grassroots forums handling both kinds of matters.
A student could generalize that institutions set up at village/panchayat level (like Gram Nyayalayas) may be intended to handle both civil and criminal disputes, so the 'civil-only' claim is questionable.
Contains a multiple‑choice test item that presents as a proposition the claim 'As per the Act, Gram Nyayalayas can hear only civil cases and not criminal cases', implying this is a noted statement to be evaluated (and possibly a common misconception).
A student could take this as a prompt to verify the Act's jurisdictional provisions (or to recall that the statement appears contestable), rather than accept the 'civil-only' assertion at face value.
Describes the Act's purpose to provide access to justice at the grassroots, a broad objective which typically encompasses both civil and criminal access to justice.
A student might reason that an access-to-justice measure aiming to ensure justice 'is not denied' would likely empower local fora to decide a range of disputes (civil and criminal) rather than only civil matters.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.