Short shrift to petition seeking speedy justice
Short shrift to petition seeking speedy justice
Janhit Manch, Common Cause, and two others had jointly filed a comprehensive writ petition in the Supreme Court in March 2008, offering a multi-pronged strategy to expedite the dispensation of justice and reverse the trend of a mounting backlog of Court cases. The writ petition had relied heavily on the Law Commission of India reports. The need to use alternate modes of disputes redressal, pre-litigation measures and plea bargaining had also been stressed in the petition.
The matter was heard in fits and starts over an extended period of over six years, experiencing the full rigour of the dilatory and capricious judicial process that it set out to mitigate. The denouement came on December 10, 2014 when the Apex Court summarily disposed of the petition, placing reliance on the Solicitor General's statement that most of the issues raised in the petition were also involved in Criminal Appeal nos. 254-262/2012 Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
The fact of the matter is that while our petition sought to comprehensively address the demand, supply and efficiency issues contributing to a progressive dysfunction of the system of administration of justice in the country, only a few of these fundamental issues are being considered peripherally in Imtiyaz Ahmad's appeals.
The Court went on to observe that the Judiciary had already considered most of the issues raised in the petition independently and finally. The question is whether such consideration has led to any tangible improvement in the situation on the ground. The crux of the matter is the implementation of the decisions of the Judiciary. And this is what the petition was about.
The following application for the recall of this unwarranted order has been filed by the petitioners.
-Editor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
I.A. NO. 1/2015 in W P (C) NO. 122 OF 2008
IN THE MATTER OF:
Janhit Manch & Ors. ...............Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...............Respondents
APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF ORDER DATED 10.12.2014 UNDER PROVISIONS ANALOGOUS TO SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 6 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966
1. The Petitioner-Applicants are three non-government organizations, namely Janhit Manch- A Society for Good Governance, Common Cause A Registered Society, Lok Sevak Sangh, and a citizen of India, Ravi Goenka, and had filed the instant writ petition/public interest litigation in 2008, seeking effective implementation of various court directions and laws in order to effectuate the fundamental and constitutional right to `speedy dispensation of justice' and under Articles 21, 14, 19 read with Article 39A, and the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
2. They are now filing this Application seeking recall of Order dated 10.12.2014 vide which the entire petition, heard over the last 6 years, was summarily disposed of without addressing important issues relating to judicial reform raised in the matter.
Reliefs sought in the petition
a. The Petitioner-Applicants had sought the Court-monitored implementation of the specific directions given in All India Judges' Association (2002) 4 SCC 247 in regard to:
i. Increasing the strength of the judges from 10.5 per 10 lakh population to 50 judges per 10 lakh population in 5 years,
ii. Filling up all existing vacancies in the subordinate courts at all levels in all the States in 1 year, and
iii. Appointing as many ad hoc judges as may be necessary to clear the backlog of cases;
iv. Putting in place/making available the required infrastructure in order to accommodate all these judges,
b. In addition, the Applicant-Petitioners had sought the following reliefs:
i. To review and ensure phase-wise implementation of the 5 year scheme for `Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Enablement of Indian judiciary' launched by the Government of India, on October 5, 2005,
ii. To set up a time-bound mechanism to rationalize and streamline court procedure with a view to expediting disposal in both civil and criminal cases and further, and to direct the High Courts to monitor compliance of all the procedural norms for effective and timely dispensation of justice and ensure the implementation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, Hussainara Khatoon, 1980 1 SCC 93, etc.,
iii. To set up an effective system of prioritization and tracking of cases requiring urgent attention, such as matters involving entitlements of senior citizens, custody of children, habeas corpus, death sentence, interim maintenance for women and children, etc.
iv. To ensure greater transparency and accountability by setting up a complaints / grievance redressal cell at every court and monitoring and publishing their reports periodically,
v. To review and modify training needs and programmes of judges, judicial officers and lawyers in light of the 117th Law Commission Report and the NCRCW in terms of internal efficiency and external effectiveness, as well as moving from a narrow approach of day-to-day case handling to one of a vision to render justice based on social needs, constitutional goals and a fair and balanced approach.
Progress of the case between 2008 and 2013
3. Notice in the matter was issued in 2008, and all States and Union Territories were impleaded in 2009. As directed by this Court, the Applicant-Petitioners submitted a detailed analysis of the pendency and vacancy data for 5 years. This information was painstakingly compiled from the States and High Courts. The Applicant-Petitioners gave concrete suggestions to cut down the pendency and arrears in November 2011. They also submitted a detailed report on video-recording of court proceedings and making transcripts available. The said report was taken on record in 2012. The matter was thereafter listed for further directions for February 2013.
4. The aforesaid analysis was carried out from the standpoints of demand, supply and efficiency, leading to pragmatic suggestions for realistic scheduling of cases, cause-list planning and rationalization, and generation of accurate, real time record of court proceedings through digital video-recording. The reports and submissions made by the Applicant-Petitioners, which offer concrete solutions to address specific concerns, are yet to be heard and considered by this Court.
Summary disposal of the case on 10.12.2014
5. When the matter was taken up after a gap of 2 years on December 10, 2014, this Hon'ble Court opined that the petition required to be closed for the following reasons:
a. That the Learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India had submitted that the issues involved in the instant petition were also involved in Criminal Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012, Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. & Ors, which is being heard by this Court.
b. That the Judiciary had considered most of the issues independently and finally.
Distinction between Imtiyaz Ahmed case and Petitioners' case
6. It is submitted that the gravamen of the Petitioners' case is clearly distinguishable from the matters under consideration in Imtiyaz Ahmed and dealt with in the 245th Report of the Law Commission of July 2014 on a reference from this Hon'ble Court. The said report focuses on the calculation of the total requirement of judges/courts for clearing the backlog of pending cases while ensuring that the rate of disposal keeps pace with the institution of fresh cases.
7. Indeed, the Law Commission Report confirms the need for an in-depth qualitative analysis of the problematique, and cautions that judge strength will only address a part of the problem (Chapter III 4, III 5 e). It also highlights the risk of compromising the quality of decision-making in order to raise the rates of disposal (Chapter III - 5 e), the need for a more detailed and sound analysis, the need for many other measures, for setting up performance-benchmarks and rational, non-mandatory time-frames, and affirms that the piecemeal approach to delay-reduction needs to give way to a more systemic approach (Chapter IV 8, 9).
8. The petition of the Applicant-Petitioners has highlighted the fact that the time-bound directions given in `All India Judges Association' (2002) 4 SCC 247 are yet to be given effect to long after the deadline fixed by this Court. Indeed, the thrust of the petition is on effective implementation of the provisions made in the relevant statutes of procedure and the orders passed by the Judiciary with a view to expediting the disposal of court cases and effectuating the Constitutional guarantee of speedy dispensation of substantial justice.
Injustice if Order dated 10.12.2014 not recalled
9. It is therefore submitted that a grave injustice would be done if this Hon'ble Court does not recall its Order dated 10.12.2014, which has abruptly closed a matter of great import being agitated for over 6 years. This matter has been listed on as many as 24 occasions, and all the States and Union Territories have been impleaded as parties. In the interest of justice, it is imperative that various inputs and reports submitted by the parties are given due consideration and the issues reflected in Court orders dated 24.2.2011, 8.9.2011, 3.11.2011, 24.11.2011 and 11.12.2012 are taken to their logical conclusion.
10. The petition of the Applicant-Petitioners, which seeks to secure the right to speedy justice guaranteed under the fundamental right Article 21 and the Preamble, has made considerable progress thanks to the orders passed from time to time by this Hon'ble Court. Based on data compiled under the aegis of this Court's orders, the Applicant-Petitioners have attempted to evolve concrete solutions to speed up the dispensation of substantive justice with a view to supplementing the efforts by the Judiciary and the Executive.
11. It is widely acknowledged that the problem of a crippling backlog of court cases and inordinate delays in the delivery of justice is nowhere near a solution and the Applicant-Petitioners through this petition seek to make their contribution towards this worthy cause and the collective reflection required to find a solution.
12. The Applicant-Petitioners seek effectuation of the fundamental rights of citizens of this country to speedy, substantial justice. They are also entitled to seek a time-bound and court-monitored implementation of the earlier orders of this Hon'ble Court in this regard. The reliefs sought in the petition of the Applicant-Petitioners are yet to be granted and their denial would result in continued violation of the fundamental rights of crores of citizens of this country.
PRAYER
Accordingly, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to:
A. Recall its Order dtd 10.12.2014 in WP(C) 122/2008, restore the petition to its original number and fix a date for further hearing,
B. Pass any other order or direction deemed fit and proper.
Drawn by: Through
Indira Unninayar, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
Date: 16.02.2015 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
Place: New Delhi
