Claims Master Group - 08000 71 22 71 - Problem of judicial delays

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.