Forget Right to Justice; Just Do What is Right
..or how Justice delayed is justice denied.
Some of you must have read the recent news-report of a bill proposed to be tabled in Parliament to ensure “time-bound justice for citizens“. The bill has some interesting provisions, including
…measures like discharge of an accused in a traffic offence if trial is pending for more than two years due to non-service of summons. “In case of trial of offences compoundable under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law in force, pending for more than two years, the court shall discharge the accused if the trial has not commenced and close the case“
Press reports mention that the
…bill will provide for speedy and cost effective trials by laying down a 60-90 day timeline for inquiry and a three-year deadline for completion of court proceedings.
This should be cause for celebration, I guess…Or should it? Is the solution to too many laws and a clogged up judicial system, another law (or another “Right”)? As Joginder Singh writes in “Gift-wrapped bunkum“
…Of late, the Union Government has exhibited a penchant for regurgitating Fundamental Rights already embodied in the Constitution in the form of New Rights, as if it was doing a favour to the people by providing them with newer and unprecedented entitlements. Take for example the National Employment Guarantee Act which promises wages that are so low that one is destined to starve and even that paltry sum of money is siphoned off, or the Right to Education which is meaningless given the inadequate number of schools, lack of proper class rooms and the absence of teachers. The proposed Right to Justice Bill is the latest addition to the list.
Without ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to implement laws, if by simply promulgating them development could have been achieved, India would have been a heaven by now.
Our policy-makers (and well-minded civic activists) often confuse symptoms with causes..and this bill is a great illustration of that. Instead of remedies to fix a broken system, what we get is another law that mandates a 3-year deadline for disposal of cases. One doesn’t need to be a genius to figure out what happens if the time-frame is exceeded. The over-burdened system gets further swamped with even more cases…
The problem is actually quite simple: We have too many laws and the Government is the biggest litigant.
Another law (or “right”) will almost certainly make the situation worse. As Joginder Singh writes:
Seventy per cent of the over three crore cases that are pending in Indian courts involve the Government as either petitioner or respondent. To make matters worse, 90 per cent of those cases fail and should not have been filed in the first instance, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.
The problem of too many laws and a over-zealous government is compounded by the acute manpower scarcity. As Joginder Singh points out in his article, UP – with a population of 200 million – has only 65 sitting High Court judges (95 of the sanctioned 160 posts are vacant)! Not surprisingly, its number of pending cases in the state is approaching 10 Lakhs. Depressingly, 30% of criminal trials have been pending for 10 years, of which 9 % for more than 20 years.
More depressingly, the Supreme Court itself is not hopeful about speedy justice. As a 2-judge bench observed recently:
The system has already become sick. What can be the expectation of the common man for speedy justice? Even in the Supreme Court, a special leave petition takes eight years to reach final hearing.
The backlog is pervasive. For example, a recent report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) titled, “Ethics in Governance” noted:
…election petitions remain pending for years and in the meanwhile even the full term of the House expires, thus rendering them infructuous.
This even as Sections 86(6) and 86(7) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 say that “the High Court shall endeavour to dispose of an election petition within six months and also as far as practicably possible conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis”.
Given this situation, shouldn’t the focus and emphasis be more on “fewer laws and better implementation?” As Tavleen Singh writes:
We do not need another law. We need a justice system that implements our existing laws speedily and effectively. If the Lokpal can have the power to fast track justice, why not our judges?
Former Chief Justice of India Justice J S Verma recently observed that, “We have enough laws, in fact the maximum in the world. The problem is in faithful implementation.”
The government would do right to focus on that. instead of bringing in another law disguised as a “right”. We dont need more laws. We need a better justice system. We need faster implementation. We need accountability. More laws will not solve our woes; they will add to them.
Related Posts: Do we Really Need a Jan LokPal? (and somewhat related) “Har Shakh Pe Ullu Baitha Hai“
Hey Shantanu, Interesting blog! Thanks for shedding more light on this important issue. A while back, I had written a post on this issue, but more from a personal perspective. I guess a lot of people don’t realize how far behind we are in providing justice.
http://thetinypicture.com/2011/02/01/waiting-for-justice/
“More depressingly, the Supreme Court itself is not hopeful about speedy justice”
But they still take 2 months annual ‘holidays’
Anjali: I had read about your post and it was on the back of my mind when I was writing this…which is why I mentioned in the sub-title: “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”..
Thanks for highlighting the extraordinary case of your mother’s fight for 27 years…
I salute her grit and determination…Truly inspirational…
Problem starts from the selection of judicial officers in the lower rung. I came across some judgements in which Munsiffe ignores even documentary evidence without mentioning a word about it. Here lower judiciary fails to put the facts in black white before reaching to a conclusion. In one judgement I have seen Munsiffe finds that there is enemity between plantiff and defendant to such an extent that defendant will not allow plaintiff to pass through his property yet dismisses plaintiff’s petition for injunction saying that there is no basis for his apprehension. Now plaitiff has to go in appeal and appeal court has to go through all evidences once again dragging ligigation indefenitely.
Even if appeal court overturns Munsiffe’s judgement nothing happens to him. No accountability. As nation our problem is that we are irresponsible and unaccountable. We are bound to be a slave nation in the near future.
the major problem we are facing today is insufficiency of infrastructure and judges for speedy disposal of case.compared to other countries INDIA is among one of the country which have a lowest judge-population ratio.this is the urgent thing to be rectified.many of my friends who are in judicial officers in the lower level face this problem of disposal of cases.huge pending cases gives them night mare which they are unable to dispose as soon as possible even if they work 24/7.Government has to think serious about it and involve in steps to increase and improve the infrastructure.
From a brilliant post by Nitin Pai:
Mr Hegde’s own reaction to the High Court verdict is unfortunate. Claiming that his professional experience gives him the knowledge of what constitutes natural justice and when to give the accused a chance to defend themselves, he said “There were three Chief Ministers, two ministers and 797 officers who were indicted in the report. If I was legally required to issue notices to them, it would have stretched on like the Ayodhya case.”
It is hard not to be disturbed by Mr Hegde’s comments. However learned, experienced and well-meaning a person he is, it cannot be left to an individual to decide when an accused should have the right to defend himself. Also, to argue that cases will take too long to conclude if everyone was allowed to defend themselves takes us into kangaroo territory. Whatever the levels of outrage in the media and public discourse over corruption, you can’t dispense with the principles of natural justice.
Some excerpts from a 2010 article, CJI speaks to PM about Rs 7000cr grant for trial court infrastructure
by Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 13, 2010 (emphasis added)
The report presented a pitiable picture of the lower judiciary. It said court fees were abysmally low in most cases, leading to a deluge in trial courts. It requested the Centre and state governments to take immediate measures to revise court fees so that a balance was struck between welfare measures on one side and commerce on the other.
Taking the example of complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque bouncing offences, it said a complainant just had to pay Rs 1.25 to file a complaint in Delhi. No wonder around 30 lakh such cases are pending in various courts.
“It is common knowledge that the courts of magistrates are almost getting crushed under the weight of cheque bouncing cases in urban areas. These matters consume a lot of time and energy and are blocking litigation of all other nature. Still, shockingly, steps have not been taken by many states to rationalise Court Fees Act. For example, in Delhi, the court fee for a complaint under Section 138 NI Act is just Rs 1.25,” the report said.
The report suggested utilising the cost and fines imposed by courts to improve the infrastructure and lessen the burden on the exchequer. “It is necessary to create separate `infrastructure fund’ head of account under control of respective HCs or `special purpose vehicle’ where the costs, court fees and fines imposed by the HCs and the subordinate courts can be deposited and the HC or SPV should be able to allot funds to state judiciary mainly for the purpose of construction and maintenance of court buildings,” it said.
***
Also read this Open Letter to PM from Sh Govindacharya: http://www.swabhiman.in/272
Share your thoughts below.
Some Videos..
.
Support
Remind Me!
Archives
Weekly Newsletter
Join the Community
Recent Comments
Categories
Do Not Copy
Recent Posts
Most Commented
.
Search
Most Viewed (since Dec '09)
.