Introduction:
Judiciary is the mechanism for resolution in case of disputes. In India, there are different levels of the judiciary. The apex court is the Supreme Court at the top, then the High Courts in each state and then comes the District Courts. The Indian Constitution laid provision related to Judicial System and game powers as well.
Why there is a Need for Reforms in Indian Judiciary
1. Delay in the Appointment of Judges
According to the report of the national judicial data grid, it is observed that not much changes had taken place in the pendency of trials over the past few years and the delay in appointment of judges is one of the major cause of the delay in justice due to which more than lakhs cases are pending in the nation. At present, there are 13.05 judges per 1 million people in India and by this data, it is observant that the proportion of judges to the number of people for when the courts cater is quite low which results in miscarriage of the justice and affects the overall judicial system. Thus, the quantity of judges is not as much as it is required. The fundamental motivation behind equity can’t be met in the event that we don’t have the expected judges to choose the case. The former Chief Justice S.P. Bharocha had said in the similar context that “It is only when we have far more trial courts functioning that we shall be able to dispose of more cases than are being filed and thus cut down on arrears.” To overcome this problem adequate number of judges must be appointed and once the post falls vacant, they should be filled on a priority basis without any unreasonable delay but in India judicial system does not work accordingly there are a number of vacancies that exist which affects the efficiency of rendering justice.
In 127th Law Commission Report, it was suggested that the population ratio of judges should be increased from 10 judges per million populations at that time to 50 judges per million populations within a tenure of five years. Similarly, in the case of All India Judges Association case[1], the Supreme Court directed the State as well as Central Governments to increase the strength of judges five times in the next 5 years.
The main focus of the government is to raise the strength of the judges on the basis of pendency of cases, not on the basis of population. But the Government neither took any interest nor any steps to implement the recommendations.
The filling of vacancy is not the sole responsibility of the Government, but of the judiciary also, it plays a vital role in the appointment of judges. In the judgement Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India[2] it was held by the Supreme Court that a proposal for appointment of a judge must be initiated by the Chief Justice of India in case of appointment in Supreme Court and in the case of appointment in High Court by its Chief Justice of a High Court which would be sent to the President of India for approval. Therefore, it is said that the judiciary is equally responsible for the delay in appointments by not performing the duty and the due procedure is not followed, according to the procedure, the process of filling up of vacancy should start 6 months before the actual date of retirement of a Judge which is eventually inconsistent.
2. Lack of Accountability of Judges
In our Indian Constitution, the judiciary is the independent and separate organ of the state, executive and legislature cannot interfere in the judicial functioning but the independency of judiciary does not mean that it is not accountable to anyone. In Indian constitution the preamble states we the people of India which ensures that the power lies with the people of India and therefore, the judiciary must consider this fact while functioning even though the independence and fearlessness of the judiciary is found in our constitution. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India[3] it was held that ‘The concept of independence of the judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the Rule of Law under the Constitution and it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law thereby making the Rule of Law meaningful and effective.” The supreme court in several cases held that the judiciary is accountable to the people.
Judicial accountability has three stages. First, each member of the judiciary has the accountability to himself and self-introspection is the basic need for him and he has to convince himself that what he has done is morally and more importantly legally correct. The second stage of accountability includes accountability to the institution in this stage self-introspection and soul searching plays a vital role again. The individual judge has to ensure that what he has done would not bring disrespect or disrepute to the institution. The third stage considered as the most important one includes It is the accountability of the institution to the society. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged from the conscience and oath to their office, which means that they have to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour.
The Malimath Committee[4] on this issue suggested that it is necessary to regulate the functioning of the judges also by making judges accountable for their conduct by establishing a National Judicial Commission. The Chief Justice should be conferred with the following powers to take effective measures-
- Advising the Judge Suitable
- Disabling the Judge from hearing a particular class of case or cases in which a particular lawyer appears
- Withdraw the judicial work from a judge for a specified period
- Censure the Judge
- Advise the Judge to seek a transfer
- Advise the Judge to seek voluntary retirement.
3. Too Many Vacations in the Court
Long vacations in Courts are a unique feature in India. only subordinate criminal courts work the whole year but the Supreme Court, High Courts and other subordinate Civil Courts are closed during vacations. The concept of vacation established from the colonial rule during the pre-independence period, the burden was not much as compared to the present situation also the Britishers coming from cold climate found the summer in India unbearable. Therefore, vacations were a kind of an arrangement to enable them to go to England during summer and spend the time comfortably. Now the situation has been changed drastically and the courts are overburdened with pending cases. Thus, there is no need of such long vacations to be enjoyed over a large number of pending cases.
4. Misuse of Public Interest Litigation
The traditional rule is that right to move the courts is only available to those whose fundamental rights are infringed. But this traditional rule of locus standi that a petition under Article 32[5] can only be filed by a person whose fundamental right is infringed has now been considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court. The Court now permits ‘public-spirited citizens’ for the enforcement of constitutional or other legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of their poverty or socially, economically disabled people are unable to approach the Court for any kind of relief.
5. Writ Petitions
Article 32 and 226[6] of the Constitution are extremely important in our judicial system which empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts throughout the territories, in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever is appropriate. The situation has become increasingly serious even for the extra-ordinary remedies of writ petitions. Priorities have to be set even amongst the extra-ordinary remedies. More often than not the writ petitions are filed to force the executive to do their duty and the Courts have to waste their precious time in giving direction to the executive to perform their constitutional duty due to which the disposal rate of cases is reduced. a number of writ petitions are filed involving not only the same point of law but also the same or similar facts. The grouping of these petitions by the Registry will help in the quick and satisfactory disposal of cases. The co-operation of the various government departments would be required for the expeditious disposal of writ cases.
6. Delay by the judges
judiciary practices also cause delay and arrears for instance Writing of lengthy judgment, A lot of time is consumed not only by the judges but by others also in writing the judgment which ultimately results in delay in pronouncement of the judgment. Writing separate judgments even when they are concurring makes the exercise time-consuming and confusing. It thereby becomes difficult to find the ratio in quick time. The languages employed by the judges in writing judgments have also come for criticism. Such writings cause delay not only at the hands of the judges but also for lawyers in finding out the ratio of the decisions. Malimath Committee considered that some judges do not deliver judgment for years. If there is delay the judge may forget important aspect thereby contributing to a future of justice also to correct these aberrations the High Courts should issue a circular to immediately enter below the case, the title of the judgment/orders, in the following manner-
- The date when the agreements concluded.
- The date when the judgment was reserved.
- The date when the judgment was pronounced.
Conclusion
Judicial delay applies to burdensome procedures, lack of sufficient courts, the clogging of the system with cases without merit and the use of the courts to settle matters, which could be resolved by negotiation.
Besides this, the causes attributed for delay are-
1. An inadequate number of Courts
2. Judicial officers are not being fully equipped to tackle cases involving specialized knowledge.
3. Dilatory tactics adopted by litigants and lawyers, who seek frequent adjournments and delay filing documents.
4. The role of the administrative staff of the Court.
Some of the steps which can be taken so as to deal with the problem of delays are:
a. Focussing more on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: These mechanisms include procedures like Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation, Negotiations, etc. The main motive of these proceedings is to provide speedy conclusions and as less involvement of the courts as possible. Almost all civil matters can be resolved used these methods.
b. Changes in laws: The whole procedural factors revolve around the provisions of the law. Thus, to ensure speedy trials it becomes essential that the redundant laws must be changed.
c. Special tribunal set up which specialize in certain matters like labour laws, taxation, etc.
d. Better legal aid systems will also ensure that proper opportunities are being given to all despite their economic backgrounds.
e. Filing up the vacancies of judges is also an urgent need.
Further, a lot more steps can be taken to ensure speedy disposition of proceedings, and many such steps have already been taken in the past, but to no avail. Thus, the most important reform that the Indian Judiciary needs is the change in the judicial and political will of our nation.
References:
[1] All India Judges v. Union of India, (1992) (1) SCC 119
[2] Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (1994) AIR 1994, SC 268
[3] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365
[4] Arrears Committee, 1990
[5] Indian Const. Art. 32
[6] Indian Const. Art. 226
0 Comments