JUSTICES AND THE DELIVERY OF JUSTICE

*Lalit Mathur

An interesting issue arises from the recent controversies regarding the performance of the judiciary. What happens when the court itself appears to come in the way of dispensing justice? Does contempt of justice constitute contempt of court – since the court exists essentially for the dispensation of justice? According to the law of the land, of course.

My grandfather retired from the Supreme Court in the mid sixties after having spent thirty years pronouncing judgments in open court. He used to say that after the close of arguments, if ever there was a delay of more than a week in pronouncing the judgment, he would find it difficult to sleep. He was aghast to be told that there were judges in the higher courts who would, with a clear conscience, take months or longer over their judgments. And then he made a perceptive observation – how do the judges find time to travel so much to deliver lectures and attend functions when they do not seem to have time to write their judgments.

Justice no doubt has a very wide ambit; further, it is neither easy to define nor to set limits to. However when anyone hinders or obstructs the course of the law, that person would be deemed to hinder the administration of justice as well. This would happen for instance in not allowing a witness to give evidence; suppressing evidence with the intention to prevent it from coming before the court; giving false evidence and so on.

For these and similar cases there is invariably a specific provision of law under which to proceed against the concerned parties. The issue of obstructing the course of justice does not require to be raised – even though there is a violation of justice.

Can there be cases where there is an infringement of justice by a person in a matter before the court, but there is no violation of any law. What is the remedy in this situation? Would the law of contempt apply? After all, the matter is before the court, the court is responsible for the dispensation of justice, since justice has been breached, scant regard has clearly been shown for it and thereby the esteem and dignity of the court has been lowered. And therefore this would constitute contempt of court.
Would then, undue delays in delivering judgments constitute contempt of justice in the court, and therefore contempt of court?

Sometime in the seventies I was on an aircraft flying to Hyderabad. Next to me was a former Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This was about the period when the courts had just begun the practice of reserving judgments, and then taking a long time to deliver them. I suggested to him that these delays constituted contempt of justice and enquired whether the errant judges could be proceeded against. His response was interesting – he felt that something did need to be done, but doubted my optimism that there were lawyers who would be willing to do so. However someone should, he observed with a smile, look at contempt of justice as contempt of court.

Delays have too long been regarded merely as an administrative matter. Chief Justices of India and of the high courts have, for several years now, urged courts for quicker disposals. Steps are taken for computerization, concerns expressed at the large, and the generally growing, number of vacancies in courts, pending cases are analysed, priorities are set out and so on.

There has not been any focus on cases where the judgment stands reserved, but is not pronounced for months and even years. Yet there are instances – even in the Supreme Court – when judges deliver judgments on the eve of their retirement, not in one case but sometimes in several. There have also been situations where judgments have not been pronounced even on retirement, and new benches have had to be constituted to hear arguments with evidence being presented all over again.

And yet, today, judges religiously take vacations, and many continue to have a busy schedule of engagements at public functions. The mind of a judge must be relaxed, free of tension and not oppressed by overwork. They are required to write judgments personally, and with an uncluttered mind; no drafts of judgments come to them, as is the case with most papers in official decisions and reports. No one, therefore, can or should grudge the judges their vacations.

Should one, however, accept delays by the judges themselves, in their own courts, on matters where the proceedings in the case have been completed? Should the court not itself respond? Or will it be left to some concerned citizen to take the risk and question the court? Should the justices be taken to court for contempt?

This may not be a matter as volatile as allegations of corruption against a retired Supreme Court judge and impeachment, but it certainly is an issue which cannot and should not remain unaddressed.

*Mr. Lalit Mathur is a retired civil servant.
email lalitmathur45@yahoo.com

Overheard: I can say one good thing about airline food: at least they’re considerate enough to give you only small portions.
•••••••••
‘There now,’ cried little Christine the other day, rummaging through a drawer in the bureau, ‘Grandma has gone to heaven
without her spectacles.’