E-Paper
Unnecessary delay in disposal of cases
While inaugurating a nationwide project for computerisation of courts in the first week of October, 2005, the Prime Minister (Dr Manmohan Singh) asked the Union Law Ministry as well as the Supreme Court to devise ways in which securing justice becomes easier, faster and cheaper.Severely disapproving the staggering pendency of cases, their tardy disposal rate and high cost of securing justice, Dr Singh observed that 'equality before law' becomes an unattainable ideal, if the present system of dispensation of justice is allowed to continue. Somewhat similar observations were made by the then chief justice of India (Dr Anand) while speaking at the Golden Jubilee function of Rajasthan High Court.
While inaugurating a nationwide project for computerisation of courts in the first week of October, 2005, the Prime Minister (Dr Manmohan Singh) asked the Union Law Ministry as well as the Supreme Court to devise ways in which securing justice becomes easier, faster and cheaper.Severely disapproving the staggering pendency of cases, their tardy disposal rate and high cost of securing justice, Dr Singh observed that 'equality before law' becomes an unattainable ideal, if the present system of dispensation of justice is allowed to continue. Somewhat similar observations were made by the then chief justice of India (Dr Anand) while speaking at the Golden Jubilee function of Rajasthan High Court.
Dr Anand observed that 'when we enter the twenty- first century, the first thing which we, in the judiciary, shall have to take care of is to see that the arrears of cases which have mounted up till now gets eradicated at the earliest, human hope has its limits, and waiting endlessly is not possible in the current life style'. According to Justice PN Bhagwati, the judicial system in the country is almost on the verge of collapse, and it is cracking under the weight of arrears. The then chief justice of Madras (Sri Markandey Katju) had also cautioned that the principal concern of judiciary should be reducing the huge arrears of cases.
Even in the all India Judges' Case, the Supreme Court succinctly stated that it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that the backlog of cases is decreased and efforts are made to increase the disposal of pending arrears.
But despite their tall talks and lofty lectures, nothing substantial appears to have been done to reduce the load of litigation in the courts. Population explosion and legal accumulation are the twin factors, which independent India has failed to control. The status quo in the judicial system suits the politicians who think that the reforms in the judiciary are an internal affair of higher judiciary.
It has been reported that on 1.1.2005, the total pendency before the courts in India was as high as 2,94,97,251, including 33,79,033 cases pending before 21 high courts. The number of cases pending before the Supreme Court has gone up to more than 30,000. Thus, our courts are drowned in oceanic litigations.
The right to get fair and speedy trial is a basic human right and any procedure obstructive of such right should be considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The case of AK Bhatt (1997(5) SCC 457) is a classic example as to how delay is defeating the cause of justice.
In this case, the landlord, aged 54 years, sought to evict his tenant on the ground of his personal need to carry on his own business. When the matter finally reached the Supreme Court after a lapse of 33 years, the landlord was non-suited on the ground that at the ripe age of 87 years, he is not supposed to start a new business.
Everybody knows that it took more than seven years to convict the killers of Rajiv Gandhi. Harcharan Singh Longowal's murder trial consumed 13 long years to conclude. All this is happening when India is a signatory to the international convention, which recognises a right to speedy trial as a basic human right.
Rule of law, it has been said, must run close to the rule of life. The lack of speedy dispute redressal mechanism has a direct impact on the level of lawlessness in our society. Instances are not wanting when people have to approach to goondas and mafias to get their claims settled, and the irony is that such informal systems are found more satisfying than those offered by the constitutional system.
A number of committees and commissions were constituted to consider the problem of arrears, but the abnormal accumulation of pending cases continues to tease the judicial administration.
If the citizens of the state are standing in a serpentine queue and are anxiously waiting for their turn to get redressal of their grievances, then the judiciary cannot and should not remain a silent spectator in the fond hope that the problem of arrears is the headache of the executive or the legislature.
The superior courts will be well advised to hold periodical meetings to scrutinise the figures of fresh institutions and the cases disposed of during the period under review and to assess whether the law of diminishing return has become operative. The judges should also evolve a strategy to meet the challenge of mounting arrears. Some of the measures, which could be considered relevant in this regard, are discussed as under:
The Supreme Court and the High Courts must function in full strength with no post lying vacant. If the vacancy is not filled up for any reason whatsoever, then re-engagement of the retired judges should be made possible.
The constitution of the national judicial commission should be expedited and the present outmoded system for the appointment of judges should be done away with. At the time of its birth, the Supreme Court had only seven judges. It present strength is 26, and yet the liquidation of arrears is not in sight. A scientific study, should, therefore, be undertaken to re-determine the strength of each high court so that the pending cases are brought within manageable limits.
The practice of the hon'ble judges sitting in benches should be scrapped so that more judges are available for disposal of cases. If the formation of benches is done away with, the number of cases disposed of may exceed by more than 30 per cent. The history of independent India is also a history of working days getting shorter, and the list of holidays getting longer.
Our apex court sits only for 180 days and the high courts work only for 210 days in a year, provided there are no strikes. Such long vacations are clearly a vestige of the British days and they should be stopped as early as possible.
The archaic procedure of oral arguments continuing for several days also requires rethinking. In the famous case of Keshavanand Bharti, the learned arguments of parties' counsels continued for several months. It should, therefore, be considered whether some time limit should be imposed in this regard. In US Supreme Court, arguments are ordinarily confined to 30 minutes for each side.
Lengthy arguments necessarily results in lengthy judgments. In TMA Pai Foundation Case, the judgment was delivered by an 11- judge bench of the apex court which was interpreted by different people in different perspectives, with the result that a fresh bench of 5 judges had to be constituted for removing the doubts and anomalies. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Privy Council-type judgments are to be preferred.
According to Justice Krishna Iyer, 'why should we have so many appeals, revisions and review, as if truth cannot be discovered, unless it is subjected to a spiral of correctional operations. This disease of appellaticitis must be cured, specially when lawyering is too expensive and justicing is too costly. The courts permit unlimited oral arguments and irrelevant heaps of paper books.
Days, weeks, and months pass, and the same case is being heard with encores from bench and the bar. Likewise, the long gestation before the delivery of judgment is becoming a chronic habit. When the nation with bated breath waits in suspense to know what the law on a crucial point is, the courts hear the arguments leisurely, and pronounce judgment after months or even years'.-A Judges' Extra-Judicial Miscellany. Speaking on another occasion, the learned judge further observed that there has been erosion of faith in the dignity of courts and in the majesty of law, and this has been caused not so much by the scandalising remarks of the politicians, but by the inability of the courts to deliver quick and substantial justice to the needy.
With a view to reducing the arrears, the legislature should also intervene. It should enact a new law to provide that certain specified categories of cases are given a legislative burial. For example, all traffic cases and cases under the Motor Vehicles Act pending for more than a specified period should be allowed to abate.
All criminal cases pending for more than one year should also be dropped, provided the maximum punishment prescribed therefore does not exceed three months. All three cases where the accused persons are in custody for a period exceeding three years should also be dropped provided the maximum punishment permissible under the law was seven years or less. Section 309 of the IPC was once declared by the apex court as unconstitutional, and hence, all prosecutions pending under that provision should also be allowed to abate. In the Board of Revenue, a large number of revenue cases are reported to be pending.
In 1983 RD 60, the board had itself observed that it takes 6 to 8 years for a case to be listed for hearing. Some surgical operation is, therefore, needed to reduce the pendency before the board. The above list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. Reference may also be made to the UP criminal law (composition of offenses and abatement of trials) Act, 1979, whereunder similar exercise had already been made.
The legislature should also intervene to enact a law for establishing educational tribunals in each district as directed by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation Case and in several other decisions of the high court.
These tribunals are likely to reduce the load of litigation before the law courts. Unless we increase the number of judges or evolve new outlets, the unprecedented docket explosion cannot be contained. It should be remembered that situations without precedent require remedies without precedent.
(The writer is ex-Secretary, Assembly)
