B L Saraf
The Central government has come to believe that granting adjournments by the judges is a reason for the delay in disposal of the cases. So, a move is on the anvil to penalise judges if they grant more adjournments. The Government is contemplating a measure that would require higher judiciary to impose fine on the subordinate judges who grant frequent adjournments to the cases pending trial before them . Does it show a seriousness of the Government to tackle the problem? No, Sir.
There can’t be two opinions that the justice delivery system in India is in imminent danger of falling apart. Delay in disposal of the cases is one of the causes. More than 3 crore cases are pending in various courts of the country — most of them for number of years. According to the statistics available, there are about 40 thousand cases, of five or more years age, pending in the subordinate courts of our State. It is a miracle that against all odds the system has held together so far. It is afflicted by a serious ailment which if not cured in time may turn terminal. It is not that people responsible to attend to it are not aware of the malaise. However, the medicine administered or sought to be administered is quackish and half-hearted.
The Government has to put its act together before penalising judges for the delay. The judge population ratio has to be rationalised . When we have one judge for a million population, no matter how hard we push himphysically, the pendency will refuse to come down . Adding to the woes in this regard is the abnormal delay in filling up the vacancies in the subordinate judiciary and the High Courts. Where ever courts exist proper working atmosphere is missing . They don’t have the basic infrastructure, besides being poorly staffed. What aggravates the position is the plethora of legislations which government brings about regularly. Every legislation has an inbuilt tendency to generate a new kind of litigation. The Chief Justice designate Justice P. Sathasivam has put the matter in perspective. Speaking to the media about his priorities, the Honourable Judgesaid thatto bring down the pendency separate courts need be created to deal with the cases arising out of fresh legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Negotiable Instruments Act and others. Time has come when the government will have to factor in the quantum of fresh litigation a proposed legislation will generate- as its financial implications are considered – before it is put on the Statute Book. Simultaneously, requisite number of new courts should be put in place to cope up with the ensuing ligation.
Othersignificant measure government could take to de-clog the courts is to stop being a litigant. Well, it may have no choice for being sued, certainly it can do without suing on its own. Often we see a most ridiculous spectre of two departments of the same government fighting it out in the courts like ordinary litigants. Moreover, Government should appoint its law officers on merit and not on their political affiliations; and authorise them to have case settled through ADR mode, where ever possible. In our State the position is far worse. There is a total indifference on the part of government towards the judiciary.
Instances galore. How it has nearly demolished the Consumer Disputes Redressal mechanism in the provinces can be one such instance. The story in itself will fill in a major column.
Another cause for bringing the justice delivery system on the verge of collapse is the disproportionate acquittal in the criminal cases. More often it is due to lack of proper investigation, or failure of witnesses to stick to their investigative stand. The issue has been discussed so many timethrough thesecolumns, with no response from the State. Police reforms , suggested in this regard gather dust.
There is impending need to cut the procedural flab and streamline the law to foreclose the routes which allow an avoidable room to a compulsive litigant for protraction of trial.
‘Adjournments’ are granted on variety of reasons; sometimes impelling but not explainable in simple terms. In J&K we live in the situation where nothing is certain; the whole administrative work suddenly comes to a grinding halt, for no justifiable reasons.
In a judicial trial so many considerations intervene which require postponement of the trial.
For instance, witnesses don’t turn up on the fixed date, heavy cause list for the day, advocate’s nonappearance – often justified occasionally convenient etc. So, for every ‘adjournment’ we must institute enquiry to find its justification or characterise it as “frequent” — a sure cause for the further delay. Judicial reforms are urgently needed.
But they must be wholesome, packaged to cover all the stake holders connected with the justice delivery system. No piecemeal or ad -hoc arrangement will work .
By the way, has anybody heard about the PanchayatiAdalats?
(The author is former Pr District & Sessions Judge )
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel