Judiciary Reforms

04-Aug-2022: Judiciary Reforms in India

Recently, the CJI and other Justices have expressed their views about two very pertinent aspects of our Judiciary System:

• That the poor have no reach to the expensive and elusive houses of Law, and they suffer in silence.

• That sizable section of under trials are resigned to their fate, having no physical, legal, social, financial support.

If you closely look deep inside it, you will be surprised these observations are obvious, and one doesn't require the stature of CJI or Justices. Any average person can guess it. In fact, I have mentioned this very facts in one of my articles 15 years ago.

Well, the pertinent question here is what the CJI or the Justices or for that matter the Judiciary have done about it. Perhaps "Nothing". Everybody knows that the SCI is more interested in advising GoI and other State Govt.s rather that doing its own moral duties.

We must remember that there are over 4.5 crore cases pending in various courts in India (about 75,000 in the SC). And the number of judges stand at about 29,000 (about 33 in SC). If a judge clears one case per working day, it will take 6 years to clear the back log only, leave aside the new cases in these 6 years.

We frequently hear the statement: "Bail is the norm and Jail is exception". But for whom? For people with money & influence, not for poor and innocent people.

Here and now, I suggest some very simple steps to go about or just to initiate Judiciary Reforms. Why simple? It is said that the best solutions are always simple. 

• All the vacancies in all the courts should be filled up on an urgent basis.

• All the courts must work for 8 hours a day and 6 days in a week.

• There shouldn't be any "Summer  / Winter Vacation" for the Judges (That was a Btitish Legacy). We must have 300 working days at the least.

• All the under trials who have already put up time more than if they would be convicted, must be released with immediate effect.

• Then there are some weird cases like one case is still lingering for the accounting mismatch of Rs, 28 only. Such cases must be wound up at once.

• There are still cases where things were delayed deliberately, hearing adjourned on flimsy ground, because the Lawyers get to benefit out of these. Such cases should be stopped out rightly.

• There are several instances of poor bailees who are not released from Jail because of some red-tapism or procedural issues. 

• Unnecessary / uncalled for review petitions must be prevented.

• Special treatment to the influential section must be stopped- like opening the court at the middle of the night, going straight to SC, etc.

• In courts, where there are heavy back-log of cases, extra courts and judges may be created, like Fast Track Courts, Lok Adalats, and Gram Nyayalayas, Family Courts, etc.

• Legal assistance to be accorded to the weaker sections of society.

• In PIL cases, the petitioner has to get at least 1000 signatures of public, prove his integrity & back ground free of any criminal case, and also has to prove his stake / involvement.

• The courts should do away with archaic and British related laws which have lost their relevance today.

• Still there are cases where the Judge is taken to task because of speedy judgement. These things should be encouraged, of course with correct procedure, not taken to task.

These suggestions look simplistic and don't require any special ability to spell out, but difficult to implement in our own scheme of things. But there must be a start sometime- the sooner the better. Now the question is who will initiate it? It's the CJI of the SC of course.

Think it over!

Esteem of Supreme Court

The Esteem of the Supreme Court of India

A Short Article By Dibyajyoti Purushottam, 20-Nov-2021

An analysis of how the Esteem and Reverence enjoyed by the Supreme Court of India is decided by its own action.

The Supreme Court (SC) of India, which we all Indians hold high esteem of is now in the midst of certain kind of threat from a small coterie which exert tremendous amount of pressure in the Social Media (SM) backed by power, politics, money, influence, technology, social followers, anti-establishment / national inclination, mob power and so on. They compel the honourable judges for certain kind of judgements, failing which the judges are subjected to massive “trolls” in the SM. This situation has led to a recent recusal of two very senior judges in a case regarding the river water sharing case.

Now, if one analyses the cause closely, one is surprised that the SC itself is the major contributor. Let’s elaborate:

We all know that the SC is the supreme interpreter of Law and Constitution. We all have learnt as students that the Constitution must be followed in “Letter & Spirit”. 

But unfortunately, everybody tries to follow in “Letter” only, and that too in a subjective / selective manner to suit something or somebody. The “Spirit” is missing altogether which may be called “Logic” or the “Rationale”.

Most of the times it is noticed that the cases are decided more by the level of “Reputation” of the representing Lawyer and less by the merit of the case. 

A classic example is the case of a renowned SC advocate who had tweeted offensive material against a few senior Justices of the SC. The contempt of courts case was upheld and he was fined only one Rupee.

This fact may be interpreted as the worth of “Esteem” or “Reverence” of the SC is a mere one Rupee. The SC itself has fixed a value to its own esteem / reverence as one Rupee.

Likewise, several senior level judges’ protest against the CJI creates a bad precedent. If the judges don’t honour their senior colleagues then how do they expect others to honour them?

We know that the “Freedom of Speech” is a fundamental right. But if you think rationally, you will find it is NOT ABSOLUTE, and NOT Limitless or Unlimited. On the other hand there is a scope for “Defamation Suite”- it means that you have to find the thin line on the basis of the civilised norms.

Someone called the duly elected Prime Minister of India a thief, and he gets away with it advised not to do it again, the other uses gibberish about the judges, and pays a fine of one Rupee. Some young techies conspire against the nation, and get bail swiftly and continue to do the same, some so-called human rights activists planning to eliminate the democratically elected PM, enjoy social protection and cosy life. 

But the SC would never come to the rescue of common people who suffered blockage of roads for over a year, mass exodus of a community out of fear of life, etc. What do all these show? This is anybody’s guess.

Most of the PILs accepted by the SC for hearing are selected to please some pressure groups.

The SC is often selective in choosing the so called “Suo Motu” cases and pass judgement against majority groups who are soft targets.

On the other hand, the SC dreads passing judgement against some minority groups over the fear of retribution.

For example, the SC is more concerned about the height of “Dahi Handi” in a Maharashtra festival than the open violence against the majority community in Bengal, Kerala, Kashmir, etc.

Unable to set its own house, it tries to interfere in too many cases with the executive. We have several examples of the SC reprimanding the Central & State Govt.s but never the unlawful protesters, all in the name of freedom of speech & protest to show its magnanimity.

The chief job of the SC is to interpret the Constitution in its proper prospective, and not advise the Government how to legislate. Just like the SC doesn’t like to be advised in its own matters, so also the Govt.

The bottom line is that “To err is Human”. We are all humans, and it’s the same humans who man all the trades and services. In all professions we have good people and bad too. Out of the whole lot we respect the most- the Armed Forces and the Judiciary. In a recently published book, a former CJI says “Criticize the Judgement if you want, but NOT the Judge”. Very right indeed - but he never said that “Criticize the Government / governance if you want, but NOT the individuals behind it”, and I doubt if ever he would. Needless to say, that the very same CJI revolted against another CJI denting the reputation of the highest Judiciary Institution.

The morale of the whole story is that the SC is solely responsible for its own esteem or disrepute, and the process to attain reverence should not only be transparent, but also be ostensible and timely.

The Supreme Court of India-2

Points to Ponder for 14-Jan-2018: 

In the last Post I wrote about the Supreme Court. Within just a couple of days, an unprecedented event took place. Four Senior-Most Judges expressed concern that there have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the Nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justices of the Court selectively to the benches “of their preference” without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.

Now, let me try to analyse this impartially without prejudice to anybody, point by point:

They say that the cases are assigned to selective Judges or Benches for what reasons – must be for a verdict favourable to the CJI. It means that: 

(1) this verdict would be unfavourable to the majority of the remaining Judges, and 

(2) if the assignment of cases were done on the “Rational” basis, the verdicts may be different.

Now this is the catch. Today, in the age of high technology, it’s very difficult to accept different verdicts from different benches given the same set of facts.

Well, it happens all the while, all types of courts have different opinions and verdicts. But in the Supreme Court itself, if judgments differ, then we have to seriously think it over.

And, most importantly, the four Judges inadvertently admit that Judges can have different opinions and there is a chance of getting influenced by the external or internal factors.

The Supreme Court of India-1

Think Seriously, for 10-Jan-2018:

The Supreme court has observed, The freedom of speech and expression of the media must be allowed to the "fullest" and the press may not be hauled up for defamation for "some wrong reporting". "In a democracy, you (petitioner) must learn to tolerate, there could be some error or enthusiasm in reporting an alleged scam. But, we must allow freedom of speech and expression to press at the fullest. There may be some wrong reporting. For that they need not be hauled up for defamation".

By extending the same logic, will the Supreme court allow other professionals, say doctors and engineers to practice their trade freely at the expense of life and property? Also is the Supreme court tolerant of the criticism of itself and its judges? Then, why should there be a provision of “Defamation” at all- scrap it. What do you think?

I think the bottom line is that for press, it must have the prima facie evidence for reporting, and for individuals, they must be guided by social norms. On one hand we criticize “Bar Balas” for cultural degradation, but on the other support vulgar vituperations of other individuals. Isn’t it double standard? Looks like “Freedom of Expression” is too good for us.