B L Saraf
Keeping aside the point whether an official function should be held on a religious occasion , this year’s Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and the Chief Justices will be noted for a couple of issues flagged by PM Narrandra Modi. Speaking at the Conference Prime Minister said the common man’s expectation from the Judiciary were huge and ” the Judiciary should be cautious about delivering perception – driven verdicts, especially when perceptions were sourced from Five – Star activists.” PM may have a point that, in some cases , over activism of some individuals has been a drag on the economic development of the country. It is, also, true that despite the economic growth, registered after 1990, by opening up the economy and the decline of the communist ideology, India is not completely free from the Luddite culture of the past. For their existence, some political forces still prop up the remnants of that dead ideology. But we must remember that courts go, only, by the evidence not by ‘perceptions’.
Yes , there are some hyperactive activists who act as ‘rage boys’ and rush to the courts to vent out their’ perceived rage’. Some do so as fashion statement and some do it on prompted motivation – occasionally on a foreign cue. We see it in J&K and North – East how these ” rage boys’ get on the nerves of the Armed Forces and try to impede their fight against the elements up to destroy territorial integrity of the country. It would, however, be imprudent to paint all activists with the same brush. Many, among them, are genuinely driven by a desire to see things right for the people and do take up their issues before the courts. A distinction has to be made between the genuine activists and those who are driven by the considerations not necessarily for the good of the people and do it on the bidding of vested interest.. Fortunately, the courts are seeing through the game and are coming down heavily on a ‘professional activist.’
There may be some merit in the statement that judiciary is slow in delivering justice and seeking justice has become a nightmare for the common man. Luckily, the judiciary is conscious of the problem and, as far as possible, measures are being taken to address the problem. But Government has do much in this regard. Because, at every stage the judiciary has to approach Governments-Central or State – to come to its aid. Its dependence on the state is total. The biggest hurdle in this regard is its financial dependence. Financial stronghold is so severe that, for want of funds, courts have, often, to work without basic necessities. In the Conference, this matter was raised when the Chief Justice Of India sought autonomy for judiciary to “re-appropriate finances allotted to it by the Government.” PM has to act fast in this direction. Required financial autonomy must be granted to the highest Judiciary.
True, courts are over burdened. Who has clogged them? Time has come to find an answer to the question. The main culprits, if one could say so, in this case are the Governments. Number of the courts remains same but laws get added to the statute book. Nobody in the Government ever pays thought that a new legislation may, also , require addition to the number of the courts. laws, enacted , are prone to be misinterpreted and give birth to the avoidable litigation . Has anyone in the authority ever thought of reducing judge -population ratio in the country? We have just 12 judges for a million of population. While as in US and European countries there are 120 judges for the million. In some countries the judge number is higher.
There are numerous state actions which are, patently, capricious and arbitrary that the affected person is left with no course than to approach the courts for a redressel. We see a highly absurd spectacle of two departments of the same state litigating, in the courts, against each other. The practice has irked the Apex Court, so much , that it has deprecated it and told the Government to devise in- house mechanism to resolve the inter – departmental matters. But, no heed has been paid to this advice ,and we see this unsavoury practice going on , unabated. In some case, the Government and its officials ‘inspire’ litigation. Finding itself unable to accommodate competing interests or wanting not to take decisions, Government and its instruments compel people to approach the courts for getting a job done. Here, it will be pertinent to recall an incident of the emergency era narrated, though in a diffirent context, by Falli . Nariman – noted Advocate-in his book The State Of The Nation- Hay House India. He Writes ” ……. A Constitution Committee , which included three prominent Lawyers, was set up by the Centre to clip the wings of the high courts by proposing drastic changes in Article 226 : The Committee chairman , Swaran Singh (a Minister in Indira Gandhi’s Government ) told his colleagues that when he was himself a minster in Punjab he found, as a minister, it was not possible to render justice in individual cases because of pulls and pressures of party politics and it was far better that courts were left to the job and that is why Article 226 was left to remain in the Constitution…. .” P . 179 . Courts get overburdened when state abdicates its duty.
Judicial reform is , undoubtedly, a need of the hour. A holistic approach is required: that may include reforming police and other connected agencies, also . Patch work won’t do. All the stake holders must put heads together. Blame game must stop.
(The author is former Principal District & Sessions Judge)
Follow our WhatsApp channel