Denial of timely justice amounts to denial of justice. The two are integral to each other. Timely disposal of cases is essential for maintaining the rule of law and providing access to justice which is a guaranteed fundamental right. Speedy trial is a part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The legal profession is one of the oldest professions in the country and the world. It is considered the noblest of professions since time immemorial. No Government can function without laws and the services of the legal profession. In other words, the legal profession is as noble as virtue and as necessary as justice. The legal profession in India, which exists today, is the outcome of the legal system formulated by the British in the 18th century. In 1951, the All-India Bar Committee was established under the leadership of S.R Das.
The Advocate Act 1961 was introduced by the central government and since then has been in force in India. It brought revolutionary changes in the Legal Profession in the country, which has over 1.4 million advocates enrolled. Its vast history has evolved to reach where we are now and is still evolving.
Nobody can dispute the fact that the Justice delivery system in India is in bad shape. A survey of the working of the Indian Judicial System in the last few decades reveals that this system has failed to deliver justice expeditiously.
There is a well-known saying that justice delayed is justice denied. With 30 million cases pending in various courts and an average timespan of 15 years to get the dispute resolved through the court system, the judicial system can hardly be described as satisfactory. Countries like the US have limited mandatory time frames, for example under the US Speedy Trial Act 1974. However, India does not have general statutory time limits comparable to the US Speedy Trial Act.
While the Civil Procedure Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code, have time frames for completing certain stages of the case, these statutes generally do not prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed, or each step in the trial should be concluded. However, the case of Maneka Gandhi had a profound and beneficial impact on the administration of criminal justice, the case of Antulay also plays a significant role as it laid down the detailed guidelines for the speedy trial of an accused in criminal cases but it did not agree to fix any time limit for trial of offences.
In 2002, a seven-judge bench of the Court in P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the Court. In India, various Law Commissions and Governmental Committees have suggested directory time frames both as guidelines to courts for the timely disposal of cases, and as standards by which delay in the system can be measured.
Right from filing a case to applying for protection from arrest, seeking bail or requesting an expeditious hearing to the probability of getting a favourable verdict, the ability to get the appeal accepted by the higher courts and getting relief there, all crucial steps of the legal tangle, are influenced by the privilege one enjoys. The government is the largest litigant in India, responsible for nearly half the pending cases. Many of them are cases of one department of the government suing another, leaving decision-making to the courts. Also, in most cases, when the government files a case, it is seen that the government side fails to prove the point.
The role of lawyers is very important in the justice delivery system. The commitment of these professionals can change the whole scenario. Unfortunately, they are also responsible for the delay due to varied reasons. Lawyers are not precise; they indulge in lengthy oral arguments just to impress their clients. Lawyers are known to take adjournments on frivolous grounds.
With every adjournment, the process becomes costly for the court and the litigants, but lawyers get paid for their time and appearance. More often than not, lawyers take up more cases than they can practically handle, hence, adjournments are frequently sought. It is also true that lawyers do not prepare their cases. A better preparation of the brief is bound to increase the efficiency of the system. It is seen that lawyers often resort to strikes. The reasons could be any - from misbehaviour with their colleague both inside court or outside the court to implementation of some enactment.
It is to be noted that an advocate’s fee is not the only cost of accessing justice. There are numerous other costs involved directly, besides huge indirect costs. In such a scenario, the cost of getting justice becomes paramount and the ability to meet that cost is directly proportional to the probability of getting justice that too sooner rather than later. The inability to meet this cost on the other hand diminishes the possibility of getting justice, for the luckiest ones it may come eventually but still far too late.
However, the Supreme Court’s Judgement in Harish Uppal v Union of India that lawyers had no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott not even a token strike, will certainly discourage the lawyer to go on strike unless they had a strong cause. The advocates would be answerable for consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on the grounds of a strike call. So the need of the hour is that the lawyers must behave responsibly and restrain themselves from resorting to strikes. Lawyers also play an important role in this for professional as well as personal gains. Adjournment of a particular case be restricted to a minimal number. A fine should be imposed on the person who applies for an adjournment on flimsy grounds and the court should proceed further.
"I don't want this court to be a 'tareekh-pe-tareekh' court," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently (November 3, 2023) highlighting the 'irony' of lawyers seeking adjournment of the very same matters which were urgently listed on their request. CJI requested the members of the bar to not seek adjournments of matters unless "very very necessary ". In 2022, Justice Shah and others expressed, "The judges are not liked if they don't allow adjournments. We don't want to work for the certificates of others."
Previously in 2002, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh stated that as BCI asserts its rights, it should also take stock of its shortcomings. The mushrooming of law schools and the quality of education imparted was identified as the root of the problem. "We have a situation where anti-social elements go and get law degrees. In Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka law courses are taking place in cowsheds. You have to make introspections. This is completely diluting the quality. A person without attending classes gets a law degree…More stringent checks on law schools and more serious criteria of entry are important," the bench observed.
The number of fake lawyers across the country may well touch the halfway mark if the Bar Council of India’s two-year-old verification drive is to be believed. The United Kingdom has employed case progression officers to monitor the progress of cases, identify and address delays, and ensure adherence to timelines. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has no legal/constitutional authority to regulate the full spectrum of legal education, independent of the Universities. Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act mentions that the BCI is to lay down standards of legal education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils.
There may be innumerable reasons and limitations for the heavy pendency of cases and delayed justice delivery to the common man. The Chief Justice of India and his team are courageous enough to take bold steps and function in reform reform-oriented environment to revitalize the judicial system. If it is so, it can easily rise to the expectations of the common man in India.
The writing on the wall is very clear. We can create wonders and history by delivering speedy justice to the poor man, and the under-trial prisoners and be part of the quantum jump in Economic/digital reforms and technology India is passing through to become a developed nation by 2047.
It is up to society as a whole to decide whether to sit on the present mentality that the Indian Judiciary is an extra-constitutional institution which is above criticism or react positively to the helping hands to come out of the present pathetic functionality.
As custodians of justice, lawyers play a crucial role in either facilitating or impeding the timely delivery of legal remedies. That a systemic perspective, encompassing all levels of the judicial hierarchy, is needed for meaningful judicial reform. Taking measures for the timely disposal of cases at all levels of the judicial system, including by monitoring and increasing judge strength throughout the system; encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods, where appropriate and more efficient allocation and utilization of resources are required to fulfil the goal of providing timely justice to litigants.
Providing training and continuing education programs for legal professionals can enhance their skills, reducing the likelihood of seeking adjournments for avoidable reasons. By incorporating practical experiences like moot courts into legal education, universities can produce graduates who are not only well-versed in legal theory but also equipped with the practical skills needed for success in the legal profession. This approach contributes to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of advocacy within the legal system.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.
Also read:
- ‘Efficient judiciary is a bulwark against tyranny’, says SC speeding up civil cases pending for over 5 years
- 'Direct bearing on democracy': What observations SC made on over 5,000 pending cases against MPs, MLAs
- 4.34 lakh undertrial prisoners lodged in jails across country, UP tops the list with 94,131
