Working conditions should be made better for judges

A victim of crime is, thus, a mute witness to the whole drama. If alive, he may appear as a witness and there again the provisions of evidence act of relevancy of facts not withstanding, he is subjected to continual questioning, with the court almost silently watching.

A victim of crime is, thus, a mute witness to the whole drama. If alive, he may appear as a witness and there again the provisions of evidence act of relevancy of facts not withstanding, he is subjected to continual questioning, with the court almost silently watching.

HT Image

The law, today, fails to address the needs of the victims to be treated with dignity, to protection from intimidation, inside or outside the courtroom.
Expressing concern particularly about the treatment of victims of sexual offences in the courts during their cross-examination, in state of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Ors", the Supreme Court observed:

"There has been lately, lot of criticism of the treatment of the victims of sexual assault in the court during their cross examination. The provisions of Evidence Act regarding relevancy of facts notwithstanding, some defence counsel adopt the strategy of continual questioning of the prosecutrix as to the details of the rape.

The victim is required to repeat again the details of the rape incident not so much as to bring out the facts on record or to test her credibility but to test her story for inconsistencies with a view to attempt to twist the interpretation of events given by her so as to make them appear inconsistent with her allegations.

The court, therefore, should not sit as a silent spectator while the victim of crime is being cross-examined by the defence.

It must effectively control the recording of evidence in the court while every latitude should be given to the accused to test the veracity of the prosecutrix and the creditability of her version through cross-examination, the court must also ensure that cross examination is not made a means of harassment or causing humiliation to the victim of crime."

ii)Expeditious Justice Inordinate delay during investigation and thereafter not only denies to an accused his constitutional right of speedy trial but also leads to many other drawbacks. One of the falls out of the delay in trial is the prolonged detention of an under-trial prisoner in jail, despite the fact that under law "everyone is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty".

The plight of under-trial prisoners in this country is a distressing tale despite several pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and certain high courts on the subject, under-trials are languishing in jails in large numbers all over the country. The UTPs constitute almost 75% of the prison population in the country as a whole.

As I said earlier, a serious challenge which stares the judiciary in its face is its failure to deliver justice expeditiously particularly in the subordinate courts. It has brought about a sense of frustration amongst the litigants.

Human hope has its limits and waiting endlessly is not possible in the current life style. There may be various causes for the mounting arrears like the shortage of courts and judges, the shortage of infrastructure besides delay in filing up even the vacant posts.

There are nearly 13,000 judicial officers for a population of over one billion people, the lowest judge population ratio anywhere.

According to the statistics there are also about 150 vacancies of high court judges (748 total strength) and about 2000 vacancies in the subordinate courts (11,500 courts app). This by itself is a major cause for delayed justice.Besides, low expenditure on the judiciary (0.2% GNP) shows the low priority being given to the judiciary by the state (In UK it is 4.3% of GNP). It is high time that the state realise its obligation towards the judiciary and loosens its purse strings.
iii)Attracting competent and credible judicial officers.

However, mere increase in the number of judges is not the only solution.
An incompetent and inexperienced judge would only contribute to inefficiency and further delay in disposal of cases. The need of the hour is to have judges who are competent, impartial and independent. The responsibility lies with the persons at the helm of the affairs to ensure that competent persons of integrity are inducted into the service. It is also necessary to ensure that the meritorious and competent judges of impeachable integrity are given due regard while the black sheep in the system are dealt with firmly.

It is the human resource that works for a system that can improve or destroy it. It is important to attract talent and competence into the service to make it more efficient.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary depends upon the quality of its human resource. Competence of a judge reflects in his judgment. Unfortunately, the judiciary at the lowest rung which generally comes in contact with public at large does not attract the best of talent.

Reasons are obvious-service conditions of sub-ordinate judicial officers do not commensurate with the nature of their job. There is no scope for career advancement for them. The cherished desire of every sub-ordinate officer to at least adorn the seat of a high court judge generally becomes victim of seniority-cum-merit principle particularly when the system provides for large-scale lateral induction at the level of district judges.

If justice is required to be quick, unpolluted and cheap, the state must realise that judges shall have to be expensive and their working conditions made good.
The first national judicial pay commission in its report has also addressed this issue by recommending that the quota of direct recruitment at the level of district judges should be reduced to the maximum of 25% of the cadre, whereas in most of the states the quota still is around 33%.

I hope that the authorities concerned with the appointment, promotion and supervision of sub-ordinate courts while framing rules in that regard would have a re-look on this aspect of the matter to tone up the judiciary.

A frustrated judicial officer cannot produce the best results even if he is very competent-the state and those at the helm of affairs in the judiciary must appreciate it and take early remedial steps. The subordinate judiciary is the backbone of the system.

Not only are the subordinate judges over burdened but their working conditions also leave much to be desired. We must wake up to the shortcomings in the system and sooner the better.
(To be continued)
The writer is Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission.