Judicial Reforms
One of the weakest areas of the Indian democracy is the judiciary. There is no doubt that the judiciary has made a great contribution to upholding the constitution and ensuring a semblance of accountability of the executive. But there were major problems. There are lakhs of cases pending in courts. Cases take more than 20 years to be decided .Many government servants or other litigants have died before they got justice. Cases related to economic offenses dragged on for decades resulting in the Government being denied legitimate revenue. It was widely perceived that people with money power could manipulate the judicial system so that the cases could drag on endlessly in various courts and people without money power could be forced out, thereby denying justice. Property related cases usually took so much time that landlords found it cheaper and more convenient to go to the Mafia or terrorist organizations or anti socials to get premises vacated. In Bihar the Naxalites were organizing people's courts and providing instant justice and people were going to these courts to get quick justice. The lawyers seemed to have a vested interest in delaying the process of justice. They have little accountability to their clients. Genuine demands of benches of the High Courts being established at important towns were being resisted by the lawyers. The whole system needed urgent reforms so that the faith of the common man in the judicial system was restored. The President decided that something needed to be done at the earliest to sort out the problems.
The President called his legal advisor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the president of the bar association to discuss the problems. After a day long discussion the following problems were identified.
Shortage of Judges and Infrastructure
There were a large number of vacancies for judges particularly of High Courts and the Supreme Court which had not been filled. The Government seemed incapable of deciding on the panel of judges recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There was also reluctance on the part of some of the capable lawyers to becoming judges as it usually meant a loss of earning .There was also shortage of court rooms, staff and other infrastructure.
Excessive Litigation by the Government
The Government was a party to almost 50 percent of the cases. Many of the cases were filed by government servants who felt aggrieved by decisions regarding promotions, transfers and disciplinary cases.
Excessive Appeals against the Judgment of the Lower Courts
The financial and other restrictions on appeals to higher courts were outdated and needed revision. The governments were a major culprit in this aspect and invariably appealed against a judgment that went against it.
Excessive Adjournments
These were either due to absence of lawyers or one of the parties praying for more time to prepare for the cases. In many cases the adjournments were by mutual agreement between the parties.
Lack of specialization
Certain types of offenses needed specialization of the judges. These specialized judges were not always available and resulted in delays. There was a need for establishment of special courts for dealing with economic offenses and terrorist or Mafia related cases.
Benches of High Courts in more Cities
There was a necessity of having benches of the High Courts in all the major cities in a state to make it easier for the litigants. These should be established in spite of the objection of the bar association of the states. This would considerably reduce the cost of litigation and delays. By the same logic, there was a need to establish benches of the Supreme Court at all the metropolitan cities.
Lack of Urgency
There was a marked absence of urgency on the part of the police and public prosecutors to process case of criminal nature. As a result many poor people languished in jail without trial for periods more than the probable sentence.
Liberal Issue of Stay Orders
The courts were rather liberal in giving stay orders in cases related to acquisition of land for projects, or demolitions of encroachments or eviction of illegal tenants. Thus the projects got held up and resulted in escalation of cost and huge losses to the states. Once a stay order was obtained the beneficiaries of the stay order left no stone unturned to delay the case.
Based on the above findings the President directed the following actions to be taken:-
The recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding appointment of judges were accepted in totality. The Legal Advisor was told to ensure that the necessary notification was published within seven days. All infrastructure projects for setting up new courts or additional infrastructure in existing courts which were under planning were to be started within three months.
The emoluments of the judges were revised upwards and the Legal advisor was asked to notify the changes through a notification immediately. All salaries would be taxable. There will be no change to the existing perks.
As long as shortages of judges continue, retired judges may be employed for two years at a time to fill in existing vacancies. The Legal Advisor or Law Minister must ensure that no appointment of a judge remains vacant for a period more than a month.
Where a case is between a Government employee and the Government of India or a State Government and the case has been decided by a court of law in favor of the Government Servant, no appeal against the judgment in a higher court will be permitted. All appeals against such judgments which have been made would be withdrawn within one month and the judgment of the lower court will be implemented within 30 days of withdrawal of the case. In future, whenever the Government of India or a State Government looses a case against its own employee, it would be mandatory for the department to hold a departmental inquiry against the person advising and sanctioning litigation and if malafied intention is established, suitable action would be taken against the authority.
Appeals against judgments of lower courts by the Government of India or State Governments will not be as a matter of routine. Appeals would only be permitted if a gross miscarriage of justice is evident. If the appeal is lost, the authorities recommending the appeal will be held liable and be required to justify the appeal.
All criminal cases pertaining to minor offenses like theft, burglary, pick pocketing, ticketless travel, minor assaults will be reviewed and if the accused has been in custody for more than one year, the cases will be dropped and the accused set free. The review would be completed within three months.
Special Courts will be set up within six months for trial of economic offenses and offenses relating to terrorist activities and the Mafia or organized crime. All trials of offense related to terrorism and organized crime will be conducted outside the state in which these were committed. Such courts would be set up in each state. Courts for terrorist and organized crime would be set up in secure areas like military cantonments.
The number of adjournments allowed due to non appearance of lawyers would be restricted to three. If the lawyer failed to appear a fourth time, the case would be decided exparte.
The number of adjournments allowed when either party requests for more time to prepare the case will be restricted to one by either party unless the court is satisfied with the reason for delay. There after the case will be decided exparte.
All lawyers will come under the preview of consumer courts and would be liable to pay damages if the case was lost through neglect or lack of representation.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would lay down guidelines for grant of bail and stay orders. It would be mandatory for all judges to follow these guidelines. Any failure to do so will invite dismissal with concurrence of the Chief Justice.
Incase of civil suits, an appeal to a high court would only be permitted if the value of the property or loss is more than Rs. 10 lakhs. An appeal in Supreme Court would only be admissible if the value of loss or property is more than Rs. 1 Crore. The same financial limits will apply for cases of economic offenses. Cases involving more than Rs 10 lakhs would be directly admitted to the High Courts.
In cr
iminal cases, only cases of murder, rape and other heinous crimes may be appealed against in the Supreme Court.
Back to Contents
The President Takes Over Page 11
