JUSTICE IN THE DOCK

“Justice delayed in justice denied”. This is known aphorism. Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti, Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, has expressed that while this aphorism holds good one has to hear the counter-voice that “Justice hurried is Justice buried”.

Aphorism and its counter are both true but the incontrovertible fact is that cases in Courts of India get so jampacked that administration of justice very badly suffers. This is a position practically in all Courts of the country from the highest, the Supreme Court, to the Subordinate District Courts. Accumulation of cases in all these Courts has become so heavy that quick delivery of justice has become impracticable.

Let us look at the figures of accumulation of cases in the Courts. In the Subordinate Courts of the Districts of the country there are now as many as 2.8 crore cases. As one takes into account that in these nearly 3 rore cases individuals or families are involved on each side in each case, it means that almost abut 10 crore people are in one way or the other involved in or connected with these cases. More esasperating is the fact quite often a large number of these cases keep handing for years, and sometimes save decades. This is exemplified by the recent news paper report of a case which has been pending disposal for over 28 years. This is a case of alleged cheating. The cse was registered in 1976, it was decided in Lower Court after 14 yeas and the Court ordered imprisonment and fine. The case went up in appeal to the Additional Session Judge in 1990 after 14 years and has been finally decided by the Additional Session Judge in 2004.
It related to the accused person being taken money from the complainant for getting a shop allotted to him which was not done. Another recently reported case is of an old man who is stated to be now 107 years of age. He is involved in a criminal case for which he, along with three others, has been sentenced to imprisonment. Concerned authorities are hesitant to put him in jail; he has instead been put in a hospital where he is in a state of coma. This case was decided after many years.

Statistics of the pending cases in other Courts are also very heavy. In the Supreme Court itself there were recently 26,750 cases and in the High Court of the County, including High Courts and Subordinate Courts. The Courts are, therefore, not in a position to work at full strength. Keep in view the vast population of the country, and continuing influx of new cases, it is obvious that we need ten times the existing number of Judge to cope with the work load. 

Amendments brought about in the Civil Procedure Code, by Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002, have laid down the stringent time period for completion of pleadings in civil cases. The number of adjournments which can be granted by Courts in the proceedings has also been restricted. The amendment relating to restricting the a adjournments is, however, being honoured more in breach that in observance. Adjournments inevitably cause delay. 

Lawyers are blamed for using delaying methods, but it needs to be appreciated that no lawyer can succeed in taking adjournment if the Court refuse to grant it. On the average 50 to 60 cases are normally listed every day before a High Court Judge, practically in every High Court. It is obviously not possible for a Judge to seriously hear and finally decide more than 2 or 3 cases in a day. In the remaining cases only interim orders or directions are passed. In this way the cases continue to pile up in huge proportion. 

Another problem is the availability of opportunities of Appeals, Revision Petitions, Special Leave Petitions, which inevitably pose serious hurdles in the final disposal of cases. The uncertainty of legal position on several issues also encourages filling of Appeals, Revisions and other Petitions. In spite of these odds, Judiciary undoubtedly continue to discharge its functions to the best of its ability and competence, it undoubtedly stand as a last hope of Indian masses. The large number of cases pending in Courts, and large number of cases being instituted every day, are proof of people’s increasing faith in the Courts. 

People have faith that justice will be done, though belatedly. These is no doubt that Courts do not take any decisions without affording the parties an opportunity of hearing; and every decision by a Jude is accompanied by reasons which constitute a guarantee against arbitrariness in taking decisions. 

Judiciary is undoubtedly also utilizing the spirit of innovations. New methodologies have on various occasions been innovated by the judiciary. Public Interest Litigation is a unique device, shedding the shackles of Locus Standi. Judiciary entertains grievances of public nature. Similar is the device of Letter Petition wherein all formalities of attaching various documents with presentation of a Petition to a Court are dispensed with if the grievance relates to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. There are delays in the judicial reforms. Judiciary itself is stated to be conservative and believes in being traditional but it needs to be emphasized that if is somewhat neglected area of those who are in governances.

Tribunalisation of the judicial system has not proved effective in preventing delays. With the exception of a few Tribunals Governments of States Show that Tribunals do not dispose of cases quickly; moreover, decisions made by the Tribunals are invariably challenged in law courts. Persons presiding over Tribunals are often retired Judge and Government officials who find it hard to muster up efforts and energy required for effective discharge of their functions.

Following measurers for dealing with problems of delay in Courts are generally suggested : -

i. Provisions of procedures or law relating to progress or law relating to progress of cases must be strictly adhered to; 
ii. Vacancies in posts of judges should be filled up without delay; 
iii. Additional strength of judges should also be sanctioned and filled. 
iv. No judge should have more than 30 matters listed before him on any given day. Special judges. With record of quick disposal of cases, should be entrusted with long-pending matters and on new matters should be listed before such judges; the objective being to clear up the backlog; 
v. Monitoring mechanism needs to be developed for High court judges whereby a supreme court judges whereby a supreme court judge should monitor the disposal of cases by a High court; and groups of High court judges should monitor the progress of subordinate court judges, 
vi. Section 102 of civil procedure code prescribed long ago that no second Appeal is main table against any decree where the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs25.000. This limit needs now to be raised to an appropriate level, consistent with the present day circumstances; and it should not be less than about 3,00,000 which should be the pecuniary limit for cases filed before Civil Judges in Delhi. In most cases only first Appeal should be allowed; and nothing beyond that. 
vii. Tribunalisation needs to be curtailed. Tribunals should be constituted in respect of only those matters/disputes which are highly technical; other matters should go before regular Courts. Special courts may be assigned only specific Courts may be assigned only specific subject matters. This is already the position in regard, for example, to company matters which go before designated “Company Court” within the High Court; MCD/NDMC Appeals go before the designated MCD/NDMC Courts in the District Courts of Delhi. 
viii. Pre-summoning stage in criminal trials of complaint cases should be curtailed by accepting Affidavits in evidence behalf of the complainant instead of calling for oral deposition by witnesses. This system is already being applied in simpler cases of cheques bouncing under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 
ix. Judes need to be sensitized for depriving a person of his liberty merely on accusation . it is found that the period of detention undergone weights heavily with the courts in deciding on whether to grant bail or not. This factor is actually not relevant. The period of detaining a person in Jail as an under trial is : 

(a) To prevent the person from committing a repeat offence.
(b) To prevent a person from tempering with evidence or intimidating witnesses or
(c) In extreme cases to prevent a person from escaping. Unfortunately however, it is a common practice that the people are detained in jail for undertrial even when none of the aforesaid purposes is either applicable or is fulfilled. Detaining a person in prison as an undertrial is often used s measurer of “punishment”, which it is not meant to be. These principles need to be strictly applied. 

For the broader objective of judicial reforms there is need of (a) long-term planning (b) short-term planning and (c) certain self-determination based on introspection which for implementation do not depend on any agency external to the judiciary. The steps that need to be taken are the following : (i) the number of judges has to be suitably increased. In a previous Judgement the Supreme Court has expressed that the Central Government and State Government should strive to secure at least five to six times increase in the number of Judges in a phased manner. (ii) Information Technology must be increasingly utilized in administering the justice system in the country. Court records need to be digitalised, e-filling, video conferencing and similar other methodologies can save lot of time and energy of those associated with the justice delivery system and can also avoid unnecessary movement of person and paper from place to place. (iii) Alternate Dispute Resolution Systems need to be adopted and innovated. Lok Adalts have done a commendable job during the last four decades and lakhs of cases have been disposed through Lok Adalts. In international commerce., this procedure is catching up. (iv) Judge need to be trained to face new challenges. Continuing education, Refresher Courses and Orientation programmes should be revised to enhance the professional competence of Judges. 

Taking into account the delays in Courts XI the Finance commission of the Department of Justice had recommended the scheme for creation of 1734 Additional courts in the courts in the country for disposal of long pending sessions and other cases. The scheme has since been sanctioned and an amount of over Rs 500 crores has been allocated as special problems and upgradation grant for judicial administration. This amount is to be spent over a period of five years. Fast track courts are primarily doing session cases pending for tow years or more and the cases of undertrials in jails. At present there are about tow lakh undertrials in jails on whose maintenance Governments are spending about Rs 400 crores per annum. About 18 percent of the undertrials are in jails for more than one year. Such cases are likely to be disposed of by the Fast Track Courts as a priority. The Scheme will effect substantial savings in expenditure on jails besides addressing a serious human rights problem. It sill also expedite disposal of session and other cases which are pending for a long time. By now 1652 Fast Track court have been established, out of which 1370 Courts have already started functioning and they have disposed of 3, 70, 504 cases.

Another innovative effort has been in the shape of establishment of Family courts under the Family courts Act which was enacted to promote conciliation and securing speedy settlement of disputes regarding the marriages, family affairs and connected matters. Till a few years ago there were only 87 Family courts. As a result of initiative of the central Government 36 more Family courts have been set up in certain states. For increasing the number of Family courts the central Government has started providing assistance to the states for construction of building and running of Family courts in every district. Establishment of more Family courts will lead to expeditious disposal of family related disputes. During the three years, viz., 1997, to 2000 Family courts disposed of 91,619 cases out of which 27,793 ended in reconciliation of the family disputes.