Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily has finally ventured to grapple with a problem that his predecessors had chosen to skirt around for years. He seems to be ashamed enough about the law’s inordinate delay in our country to initiate some action on the millions of long-pending court cases that have completely clogged up the judicial system of the country and has permanently changed people’s very perception of the ability of law courts to deliver justice. With roughly 2.74 crore long-pending court cases at all levels, the business of clearing the backlog to ensure delivery of verdicts within about a year could be a task far more daunting than cleaning up the Augean stables. But Mr Veerappa Moily is unwilling to give up without one last attempt.
Moily has a four-pronged approach to the task. He wants to increase the number of judges working in three shifts even if he cannot increase the number of courts right away. He wants to have an alternative judicial system that will work right down to the village level in clearing the backlog of cases. He wants internal delays in courts to be removed. He also wants the number of cases filed by the most frequent litigant in the country to be rationalized. His first major step is to have 5,000 new courts that will operate in three shifts so that they can get the work of 15,000 courts done in order to reduce the backlog of pending cases. Obviously, the present infrastructure will have to suffice until more courtrooms can be added. Moily rightly believes that much of the huge backlog of long-pending cases can be brought down drastically in this way to reduce the waiting period for justice from the present average of 14 years to just one year which is his objective. With this goal in view, Moily has also proposed a time limit of six months for verdicts in respect of fresh cases. This can be achieved only if judges become very strict about granting adjournments. In making the additional 5,000 courts functional, Moily suggests that retired judges should be pressed into service both in the trial courts and the high courts. He has also said that a retired judge whose services are requisitioned could expect a fixed pay of Rs 50,000 a month. However, there are two implications of these measures that should not be lost sight of. One is that the 5,000 new courts will need at least three times the storage space of the present courts for records since three judges will be operating in one. The other is the inevitable dilution of quality when any system is enlarged all of a sudden. We have seen this in the case of higher education in the country, and we must be prepared for this also in the case of a rapidly enlarged judicial machinery. Moily also has a plan for reducing the number of government cases in the courts very drastically. “We will evolve a policy to be followed by officers in taking decisions on whether or not the government should file an appeal in the higher courts or not (sic). Once the criteria for filing an appeal is evolved, which would be a little conservative towards moving higher courts, I expect a drastic fall in government litigation,” Mr Moily said on Wednesday. Since the government is the most frequent litigant, this is a most likely outcome. However, he could bring down the number of government cases even more drastically if he is able to enjoin on officers the need to ensure better day-to-day justice within their departments so that government employees do not have to go to court for departmental injustice in the first place. A lower level of vindictiveness and swollen egos held tightly under leash will bring down government cases dramatically. Officers should be encouraged to ask themselves whether they would have gone to court on an issue if they had to pay the legal expenses out of their own pockets. Likewise, cases against the government would come down drastically if the government carried out court orders instead of committing contempt of court most of the time. THE SENTINEL
Moily has a four-pronged approach to the task. He wants to increase the number of judges working in three shifts even if he cannot increase the number of courts right away. He wants to have an alternative judicial system that will work right down to the village level in clearing the backlog of cases. He wants internal delays in courts to be removed. He also wants the number of cases filed by the most frequent litigant in the country to be rationalized. His first major step is to have 5,000 new courts that will operate in three shifts so that they can get the work of 15,000 courts done in order to reduce the backlog of pending cases. Obviously, the present infrastructure will have to suffice until more courtrooms can be added. Moily rightly believes that much of the huge backlog of long-pending cases can be brought down drastically in this way to reduce the waiting period for justice from the present average of 14 years to just one year which is his objective. With this goal in view, Moily has also proposed a time limit of six months for verdicts in respect of fresh cases. This can be achieved only if judges become very strict about granting adjournments. In making the additional 5,000 courts functional, Moily suggests that retired judges should be pressed into service both in the trial courts and the high courts. He has also said that a retired judge whose services are requisitioned could expect a fixed pay of Rs 50,000 a month. However, there are two implications of these measures that should not be lost sight of. One is that the 5,000 new courts will need at least three times the storage space of the present courts for records since three judges will be operating in one. The other is the inevitable dilution of quality when any system is enlarged all of a sudden. We have seen this in the case of higher education in the country, and we must be prepared for this also in the case of a rapidly enlarged judicial machinery. Moily also has a plan for reducing the number of government cases in the courts very drastically. “We will evolve a policy to be followed by officers in taking decisions on whether or not the government should file an appeal in the higher courts or not (sic). Once the criteria for filing an appeal is evolved, which would be a little conservative towards moving higher courts, I expect a drastic fall in government litigation,” Mr Moily said on Wednesday. Since the government is the most frequent litigant, this is a most likely outcome. However, he could bring down the number of government cases even more drastically if he is able to enjoin on officers the need to ensure better day-to-day justice within their departments so that government employees do not have to go to court for departmental injustice in the first place. A lower level of vindictiveness and swollen egos held tightly under leash will bring down government cases dramatically. Officers should be encouraged to ask themselves whether they would have gone to court on an issue if they had to pay the legal expenses out of their own pockets. Likewise, cases against the government would come down drastically if the government carried out court orders instead of committing contempt of court most of the time. THE SENTINEL
No comments:
Post a Comment