By Vineet Malik | April 24, 2022 | London, England
A recent statement issued by the CJI NV Ramana demeans the morale of litigants fighting for justice since decades in Indian courts. It also contradicts judicial reforms aimed to clear the backlog of pending court cases that has time and again run on the rocks
A statement made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana while laying the foundation stone of a Madras High Court building yesterday in Southern India has rekindled a long impending unaddressed issue of “Justice delayed is Justice denied” in Indian judiciary.
The CJI said “In this era of instant noodles, people expect instant justice. But they do not realize that real justice could be the casualty if we strive for instant justice.”
The CJI added, “Dispensation of justice is not only a Constitutional duty, but also a social one.”
The said statement has come when Indian judiciary is afflicted by agony and distress to have miserably failed to address the backlog of pending cases.
Year 2016 : Former CJIs Teary Moment in Vigyan Sabha
The former 43rd CJI Tirath Singh Thakur on 25 April 2015 broke down and ended up crying in a packed press conference in presence of the Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, Ministers and several other Judges in New Delhi’s Vigyan Bhawan. He said “Ever since 1987, nothing has moved ahead. Speeches have been made in the past, people have spoken on this dais, debates have happened in the Parliament but I think nothing really appears to be moving. The Central government says, we commit ourselves but it is the State government’s responsibility. The State government says No ! let the Central government provide funds to us.”
The PM after hearing CJI Thakur’s speech, acknowledged the grave issue and committed to come up with a remedy, however from April 2015 to this day of 2022, the backlog of pending cases are endlessly surging.
Law and Justice Minister’s Disclosure on Pending Cases in India
Law and Justice Minister Kiren Rijiju officially disclosed the shocking increase in number of cases before the Lok Sabha in march this year. As per figures shared by him, in a historical development, the number of pending cases in India crossed 47.5 million mark. This figure accounts for a 37 per cent upsurge since 2014.
There are 4,10,47,976 pending cases in different District and Subordinate courts. He added, “Such an increase in the pending cases attributes to shortage of judges and other infrastructure issues. Disposal of pending cases in courts is within the domain of the judiciary and no time frame is assigned for disposal.”
People in order to seek justice have been dying due to the prolonged mental agony is a truth that no one can deny.
Last year, Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad, 108 years old man and many more have died after endlessly waiting with a hope to get justice in India.
Gaikwad waited for the final verdict to be pronounced by the Supreme Court of India (SC) after spending 50 years of his life in different courts. Sadly, the verdict was not given even after his demise.
Explainer : Latin Legal Maxim - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit
It refers to the act of the Court, that shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable when a situation is protected because the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the Court’s own act. Thus, the Court’s delay should not prejudice the rights of a party, as a well settled principle.
New Delhi based Advocate Mrinal Sinha (name changed on request) says “The statement issued by the CJI Ramana is unworthy and makes mockery of Indian judicial system. The relevance of destruction of evidence and witnesses turning hostile with delay in justice are grave concerns that needs to be addressed on priority."
Repeated conferences, multiple seminars and workshops on judicial reforms have failed to yield the vision of judicial reforms in India.
Mumbai based Professor of Sociology Amandeep Singh (name changed on request) says “Instant justice Sir ? The CJI Ramana should look at the priority list of who are required Suo-moto intervention of courts and which cases were taken up instead. Under the SC watch, activists and dissenters are languishing in prisons for years without any evidence or relief.”
New Delhi based Advocate Sneha Bahl (name changed on request) says “If we are comparing noodles to justice, we have really lost perspective. Even if we give the benefit of doubt to both the judiciary and the government for increase in pending cases due to the pandemic in the last two years, both will be short of explanation to justify such a dismal condition of judiciary in India. It really hurts to the core.”
The Chief Justice (CJ) of the United States of America Warren E. Burger in 1970 said “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society :
That people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value.
That people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching.
That people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.
Mumbai based Anti-corruption Crusader and Aviation legal expert KVJ Rao says “It is unfortunate that the CJI Ramana seeks to wring his hands. I do agree that he does not have a magic wand. Having said that, the fact remains that the piling up of cases has been due to several reasons. It is primarily due to the unscrupulous litigants and also the government servants who misuse certain laws to their benefit. The corrupt judicial system in India put up with accountability standards. There are also judges who grant relief and give long adjournments to such abusive litigants. Consequently, powerful and mighty litigants make merry and a common man becomes a victim of delayed justice.”
John Owen Wilson, who presided as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia from 1963 to 1973, said about delay in the delivery of judgments “The public has a right to expect of a judge’s decisiveness. Litigants expect, and rightfully expect that the judge will soon relieve them from the agony of uncertainty that prevails until judgment is delivered. That is not to say that it is better to be quick than right. The aim is to be both quick and right.”
Comments