Skip to main content

Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried

 

Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried

[*]P.S. Khurana

            Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, after taking over as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, remarkably stated “Justice Hurried is Justice Buried[1]”. Immediately to my mind strikes “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”. Are these two jurisprudential concepts are antithesis?

            Justice is a generic term, which includes both substantive and procedural justice. In our Constitution, Justice sets the ultimate goal for all of us to serve the nation. It is blend of both natural and social justice, which is evident from the Preamble and Part IV of the Constitution of India. The concept of Justice, though so significant, is used only twice in our Constitution i.e. in the Preamble and in Article 39-A.

            The preamble sets out as[2]

“to secure to all its citizens-Justice-social, economic and political.......”

            Article 39-A[3] envisage that:-

“The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid,    by suitable legislation or schemes  or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice     are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”.

            There are more than 3.5 crore cases pending in the Courts in our Country. About 50 lakhs in the High Court, 45 lakhs in the Supreme Court and about 2.5 crore in the Subordinate Courts in India.

            The Union Law Minister in his reply to a question in Lok Sabha about the reasons for increase in pendency[4].

            These include:-

            (i)         increase in institution of fresh cases;

            (ii)        inadequate number of Judges and vacancies;

            (iii)       inadequate physical infrastructure and staff, and

            (iv)       frequent adjournments

            The steps are being initiated to overcome this problem of huge pendency of cases. The Courts are pressed upon hard from all sides to dispose of the cases at the earliest and decrease the pendency of cases. The Principle/ Concept sloganned is “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”, which has emerged in the jurisprudential theory of India by way of interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by Supreme Court.

            Article 21[5] envisages as:-

“21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

            The two most important issues pertaining to the present topic, emanating from the interpretation of this Fundamental Right (Art.21) by the Supreme Court are First, Speedy justice as Fundamental right and Second, Procedure established by law must be just, reasonable and fair. Indirectly the due process clause of American Constitution has been introduced.

            A fair trial implies a speedy trial. No procedure can be reasonable fair or just unless “that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person[6]”.

            The Supreme Court has observed:-

“No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubts that speedy trial and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21[7]”.

            The procedure contemplated by Article 21 is that it must be “right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In order that procedure be right, just and fair, it must confirm to natural justice[8]”.

            Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice[9].

            The Court could do away with a technicality coming in the way of substantial justice, the entire procedure governing a civil or criminal proceeding should not be considered a mere formality or technicality. Because once the court start belittling the significance or procedure, the ability to appreciate its relevance and value to the administration of justice and, resultantly, the respect for procedure would start declining and disregarding the procedure considering it, another impediment in the dispensation of speedy justice and wastage of court time. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same[10].

            ‘Delay’ in the context of Justice denotes the time consumed in the disposal of case, in excess of the time within which a case can be reasonably expected to be decided by the court. In an adjudicatory system, whether inquisitorial or adversarial, an expected life span of a case is an inherent part of the system. No one excepts a case to be decided overnight. However, difficulty arises when the actual time taken for disposal of the case far exceeds its expected life span and that is when we say there is delay in dispensation of justice. A scanning of the figures would show that despite efforts being made at various levels and substantial increase in the output being given by the system, the gap between the expected and actual life span of the case is only widening[11].

            The process, if compromised, in any manner, then the victim is the ‘Sovereign’. Haste during the legislative or judicial process may have disastrous effect on the due process of law.

            The efforts have been made to provide speedy justice and to decrease the pendency of cases by many ways and means like:-

            (i)         increasing the number of courts;

            (ii)        establishing fast track courts;

            (iii)       filling the vacancies at the earliest possible time both of the Judicial side and non-judicial staff.

            (iv)       better infrastructure with assistance of latest technology;

            (v)        Enhanced and better perks and facilities for judicial echelons;

(vi)       popularizing and creating acceptance of the alternative modes of settlements viz-mediation, arbitration or conciliation etc.;

(vii)      establishment of evening courts to deal with particular nature of cases.

            What needs to be done is to increase the efficiency in the judicial system, placing the emphasis on delivering justice in the minimum time and not simply pressurized into delivering more decision in least time.

            The procedure must be to assist in the organized, fair and transparent conduct of court proceedings. The emphasis should be on the timely and just early completion of proceedings. The law must take into own course and the judicial process and procedure be not tickled away in any manner. This does not mean that no innovations or modifications to the existing process. Such new techniques has to be resorted and followed likes:-

            (i)         increase in number of judges;

            (ii)        minimize the frivolous adjournments;

            (iii)       prioritization of cases depending upon the nature of case;

(iv)       create a culture among the litigants/ people at large and Courts in particular that time is the essence of proceedings;

(v)        increasing number of working days in courts by cutting down holidays;

(vi)       legislature, while making new laws, either creating new rights, disabilities, penalties or offence etc., must make provisions for increase in number of courts, infrastructure, staff etc. to deal with the cases likely to arise on the basis of the new legislation;

(vii)      a long term, extensive and thoughtful planning and no adhochism.

            The justice cannot be met with the establishment o more courts, more judges and quicker and shorter procedures unless they are all charged at providing substantial and complete justice.

            For an effective justice dispensation system, the courts should be made more efficient to deliver justice in a ‘timely’ and not a ‘hurried up’ manner. Thus we may say, these jurisprudential concept are complimentary to each other and have co-existence in the dispensation of justice.

 

___________

 

 

 

 

 

 



[*] P.S. Khurana, LL.M., Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh



[1] The Tribune, dated September 23, 2012.

[2] Constitution of India.

[3] Inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, S.8(w.e.f. 3.1.1977). Constitution of India.

[4] Lok Sabha unstarred question No. 2569 (November 25, 2010)

[5] Constitution of India

[6] M.P. Jain Indian Constitutional Law, Vol. I, page 1275.

[7] Husssainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532.

[8] Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.

[9] Sambhaji and others V. Gagabai and others, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 382, para 12.

[10] Supra 9.

[11] Justice Sobhagmal Jain Memorial Lecture on Delayed Justice, delivered by Hon’ble Sh. Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India, on 25.7.2006.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hanging and Strangulation: A medico-legal analysis

                                                                                                                             Chirag Goyal                                                                                                                              I.             Table of Contents II.  ...

Senior Advocates : Ethics and Duties - By P.S. Khurana

    Senior Advocates : Ethics and Duties - P.S. Khurana * Legal education in India is regulated by the Bar Council of India, which is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act. 1961.   There are two ways to obtain the degree to practice law and enroll with the Bar Council of India : (1)      a 3-year LL.B program which requires a prior graduate degree ; and (2)     a 5-year integrated B.A., LL.B. program which can commence immediately after secondary school. Some Universities offer both the five-year and three-year degree program 1 . The advocates enrolled in India are only entitled to ‘practice the profession of law’, which includes not only appearing before courts and giving legal advice as an attorney, but also drafting legal documents, advising clients on international standards and carrying out customary practices and transactions 2 . At the State level the Bar Council of India perform oversight functions and...

The Largest Democracy’s Undemocratic Parliament

  The Largest Democracy’s Undemocratic Parliament - Rohan Choudhary* This monsoon session was the fourth consecutive session of the parliament which was called off before the schedule, barring the winter session of 2020 (which was cancelled due to the pandemic). The opposition kept the parliament at standstill, demanding to have a fair and square discussion on the important issues such as Pegasus Spyware, Farm Laws etc. Now there are two ways to look at this issue, which depends on what side of political fence you stand on. Looking it from the government point of view, there stand have been that parliament can’t function amidst all the chaos and ruckus created by the opposition. If you are on other side, you may hold the view that it’s the fundamental duty of the opposition to hold the government accountable. The pertinent question that needs to be addressed here is about the means used by the opposition to register their protest. Is it right to keep the parliament at standst...