Events & Issues
New Delhi, 2 September 2021
Distant Court,
Distant Justice
ONE AMONG MANY
PROBLEMS
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Only one Supreme Court is established in New
Delhi for a country extending to 3.29 million sq.km. and a population of over
1.4 billion, which is practically inaccessible to most people fighting for justice. Is it an “injustice”
done to people, spread across the length and breadth of the country as remarked by the senior-most judge
of the Madras High Court at the time of his
retirement recently? Or an unforeseen problem and can be remedied by a
bundle of judicial reforms?
In any case, the remark echoes a common complaint
of many litigants and lawyers especially from southern India wanting to
approach the Supreme Court in appeal against the verdict of high courts.
Distant court, distant justice – is a strong
feeling of aggrieved litigants unable to take their case to Delhi because of prohibitive costs
involved in the process. For them, it means deprivation of right to justice and
equality. The judicial system depends on and works with evidences and facts and
needs arguments and hearing in person. Remote
hearing is presently a remote possibility.
Regional branches of the Supreme Court, under
existing conditions, seem necessary to make
the doors of justice physically accessible to the common man. The SC is meant
for the entire population and not just for the people living in around New
Delhi is the central point of this argument. The retiring judge suggested that the
SC should reconsider its previous decision against establishing branches or the
Centre should amend the Constitution to provide for regional Benches.
There are 25 High courts and three of them
have jurisdiction over more than one State. The High Court of Assam in Guwahati
serves Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura
also besides Assam State. The Union territory of Delhi has a separate high
court.
Apart from easing accessibility to the common
man, more branches will lessen the burden on the SC and time taken for justice
delivery. It will reduce pendency of
cases now running to lakhs in the Supreme Court. Data placed before the
SC revealed that in the Allahabad High
Court, the average waiting period to get justice in a criminal appeal
against conviction by a trial court is around 35 years as the disposal rate is
18% and appeals pending are over 1.83 lakh.
The workload on the Supreme Court is quite
heavy as it has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. It is with
reference to appellate jurisdiction, the necessity for more SC branches is felt,
as involvement of common men are highest in appeals from high courts in civil
and criminal cases. Appeals from any
judgement, decree, or final order of a high court can be made to SC if the concerned court certifies that the case
involves a substantial question of law.
Where a high court reversed an order of trial
court and awarded death sentence for an accused or where a high court has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any subordinate court under it
which had awarded death penalty or imprisonment
for not less than 10 years or merely certifies that the case is fit for appeal
to Supreme Court, the appellate jurisdiction of SC is exercised.
In civil suits, disputes involving not less
than 25 lakh in cash or property or issues considered by the High Court as fit
for appeal to Supreme court are allowed appeal. SC’s appellate jurisdiction is
very wide extending over all courts and tribunals in India except those
constituted for Armed Forces. Appeal to SC has become a routine procedure.
The apex court has also jurisdiction to call
to itself any case pending in any part of India if there was a constitutional question involved. It
also has the power to entertain petitions from ordinary people who could not
otherwise approach the court due to financial constraints.
The President
can consult the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact that is of public
importance and refer to it any dispute within its original jurisdiction. This
role is also growing in recent years.
Litigations are increasing over the years
with increase in laws, growing social-economic and other issues, problems
arising from implementing development and welfare programmes, and growing
complexities in social relations and active role of public organisations and political
institutions. Citizen awareness to rights and privileges is visible. The
workload on the judiciary has increased enormously and the one Supreme Court with
three types of jurisdiction, original, appellate, and advisory, must be really
struggling under their weight.
Low ratio of judges to population has been
cited as a cause for pendency of cases.
It was said in 1998 that there were barely 10.5 judges per million
population in India compared to 107 in the US. Judges-population ratio in
recent years has grown as19.8 in 2018, 20.39 in 2019, and 21.03 in 2020 per million population, but still grossly inadequate.
It results in enormous delay in even taking up hearing of cases causing
over-crowding of under-trial prisoners in jails. Some of them have spent in jail more time than the length
of maximum prescribed punishment for the offence alleged against them. The Law Commission,
however, did not consider this ratio as scientific criterion for deciding
adequacy of judges and gave importance
to the rate of disposal of cases.
Number of case pending in various courts was
reported to be over 446 lakh and is expected to cross 500 lakh by 2022. Clearing
pending cases is aptly described by a lawyer as similar to “draining a
bottomless pit”. The National Judicial Data Grid shows that pending cases
outnumber the number of new cases filed in any year. It is worse than Covid-19 pandemic
cases. The average hearing time for
listed cases on a day could be as small as 2 minutes according to an analysis
of cases pending in 21 high courts in 2016.
Judicial reforms in recent years have been
mooted many times mostly in the context of delay and pendency. The issue is linked with vacancy in the post
of judges which is said to be four out of 10 in high courts.
Primary role of the SC is to determine
substantial questions of law relating to the Constitution and matters of great
general importance. But, it is invaded by appeals from other courts. Setting
up a National Court of
Appeal can, therefore, be reconsidered.
“We can
assert true accessibility when the person with the maximum disadvantage
can still knock on the doors of the court
of justice”, said the CJI while speaking on modernising the judicial infrastructure. He emphasises technological
innovations in the justice delivery system which can address problems of
timeand distance simultaneously. He said, “Modernisation of judicial structure does not mean building
more courts or filling up vacancies…An efficient judicial infrastructure means providing equal and
free access to justice. This could be realised through a
barrier-free and citizen-friendly environment”.
Efficient infrastructure must include qualified
manpower including adequate number of judges whether we go in for virtual
hearing or more branches of Supreme Court.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & feature Alliance)
|