Problem of judicial delays
SUDHANSHU RANJAN
A character of O'Henry
tries to get himself arrested as he does not have any
means of livelihood. In order to get incarcerated he
starts pelting stones on all and sundry.
Ironically, even then he
is not taken into custody. He sits down in frustration
and rues his fate. Suddenly a policeman comes and
inquires from him about his citizenship. He is not able
to answer and is taken into custody.
Mohammed Saleem, a
physically challenged person, was arrested on June 3,
2005 in New Delhi for allegedly attempting to attack a
judge with a knife at the Patiala House court in New
Delhi.
He said that he was
"frustrated over delay" in compensation in a motor
accident claim case. "I know I will go to jail. In fact,
that is exactly what I want. It is better than living in
penury or begging". Saleem's plight is a poignant
commentary on the problem of judicial delays.
In August 2003, former
chief justice of India B N Kirpal appeared in a New York
court for a Japanese firm having dispute with the ICICI
Bank.
The firm preferred its
trial in the US rather than in India. Kirpal, knowing
what it means to fight a case in an Indian court, said:
"It is anybody's guess when the case will be finally
decided". General litigants cannot afford to exercise
this option; besides, speaking out may invite contempt
of court.
It is well-settled that
the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to
speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon A R Antulay). Article
21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be
deprived of his life except according to the procedure
established by law.
Such a procedure must be
"reasonable, fair and just", and from here flows the
right to speedy trial. Resource crunch is not a valid
ground for denial of right to justice emanating from
Articles 14, 19 and 21 and also the Preamble of the
Constitution as well as the Directive Principles of the
State Policy.
According to the 85th
Report of the Parliament's Standing Committee on Home
Affairs, "35.4 lakh cases are pending in the 18 High
Courts. Cases have been pending for over 50, 40 and 30
years in the HCs of MP, Patna, Rajasthan and Calcutta.
More than five lakh cases have been pending for over 10
years."
Successive chief justices
of India have lamented that the existing
judge-population ratio in India is around 14 per
million, one of the lowest in the world.
The SC in its judgment
delivered on March 21, 2002 (All India Judges'
Association and Others v. Union of India and Others)
directed "the increase in the judge strength to 50
judges per million people to be effected and implemented
with the filling up of posts in a phased manner within a
period of five years".
As for vacancies in the
superior judiciary, the judiciary itself is to blame for
it. The SC rejects panel after panel sent by the high
court for appointment of judges. There is hardly any
unanimity in the collegium on any name as there are
extraneous considerations.
Justice V R Krishna Iyer
has said: "It is unpleasant to investigate the
performance of the collegium in India and the inordinate
delay inflicted on the country in failing to fill in
time vacancies in the High Courts and the Supreme Court
while the patronage of the political bosses has largely
vanished, the patronage of the 'robed' bosses has not
improved the quality of the judges selected".
Judges also tend to
reserve judgments. The SC expressed annoyance over it in
Anil Rai versus State of Bihar, 1998: "Unexplained long
interval between conclusion of arguments and delivery of
judgment shakes the confidence of the people in the
judicial system and affects rights of the parties under
Article 21".
These directions are not
followed. It simply means that high court judges commit
contempt of the Supreme Court. The government should
bring in an Act similar to the Administrative Procedures
Act in the US.
It should ensure that
judges who do not discharge their duties and retire
keeping judgments reserved forfeit their pension and
other benefits.
The
writer is a TV journalist.
|
