Unreasonable Delay Between Hearing Of Arguments And Delivery Of Judgment Represents Denial Of Justice; Supreme Court
Introduction
As it is, pending litigation has been a
pandemic too. Nani Palkhivala once
said,
“Law may or may not
be an ass; but in India it is a snail – it moves at a pace which would be
regarded as unduly slow in a community of snails.”
In our adversarial system in preference to
the inquisitorial system arguments by counsel have a key role to play in
discovery of truth. The Bar, the professional instrument of presentation of
cases, is indispensable in the forensic process. As Brandeis observed; 'For a
Judge rarely performs his functions adequately unless the case before him/her
is adequately presented.' The great Holmes put it neatly; 'Shall I ask what a
Court would be unaided? The law is made by the Bar, even more than by the
Bench.
It is clear that the
best Judgment is the product of the finest submissions at the Bar. In this
sense the lawyer is an officer of the Court and is an integral to the
administration of Justice. A good Bar is a great [art in justicing and,
therefore, must be given a high place in the fulfilment of the right to Justice
which is fundamental to all fundamental rights. The Bench without the Bar is as
bankrupt in the delivery of Justice as the Bar without an intelligent,
impartial and independent Bench to hear and decide. The right to Justice is
inherent in every citizen; even the devil has that right.
When arguments are concluded and the Judgment
Reserved is delayed, the litigant's expectations darken into depression. Then
that depression turns into dreaded, dread transforms itself into despair and
despair evolves into explosive frustration. Judicial discipline requires
promptness in delivery of Judgments – an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this
Court. If delay in pronouncing Judgments occur on the part of the Judges of the
Subordinate Judiciary, the whip of the High Court studded with supervisory and administrative
authority could be used and it had been used quite often to chide them and
sometimes to take action against the erring Judicial Officers. But what happens
when the High Court Judges do not pronounce Judgments after lapse of several
months since completion of arguments? The Constitution of India did not provide
anything in that area presumably because the architects of the Constitution
believed that no High Court Judge would cause such long and distressing delays.
Such expectation of the makers of the Constitution of India remained unsullied
during the early period of the post Constitution years. But unfortunately, the
later years have shown slackness on the part of a few Judges of the Superior
Courts in India with the result that once arguments in a lis concluded before
them, the records remain consigned to hibernation. Judges themselves normally
forget the details of the facts and niceties of the legal points advanced.
Sometimes the interval is so long that the Judges forget even the fact that such
a case is pending with them expecting Judicial verdict. Though it is an
unpleasant fact, it is a stark reality.
In 1961, Hon'ble Judge of the Patna High
Court expressed his anguish when a Magistrate took nine months to pronounce a
Judgment. The words used by him for expressing his Judicial wrath is the
following:
"The Magistrate who cannot find time to
write Judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not do any
Judicial work at all. This Court strongly disapproves the Magistrates making
such a tremendous delay in the delivery of his Judgments."
The prevalence of such a practice and
horrible situation in some of the High Courts in the country necessitated the
desirability of considering the effect of such delay on the rights of the litigant
public. Though reluctantly, yet for preserving and strengthening the belief of
the people in the institution of the Judiciary, expressing anguish at some High
Court Judges being guilty of “inordinate
delay in pronouncing Judgments, unmindful of their obligation and Oath of
Office they had taken solemnly”, Justices K.
T. Thomas & R. P.
Sethi had said in "Anil
Rai Vs State of Bihar" (supra) that Chief Justices of all
High Courts could direct their Registries to print the two crucial dates on the
Judgments.
It was further held,
"12. The inordinate, unexplained and
negligent delay in pronouncing the judgment is alleged to have actually
negatived the right of appeal conferred upon the convicts under the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that such a delay is not only
against the provisions of law but in fact infringes the right of personal
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any
procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick
adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be
contrary to the maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit", that an act of
the Court shall prejudice none.
13. The prevalence of such a practice and
horrible situation in some of the High Courts in the country has necessitated
the desirability of considering the effect of such delay on the rights of the
litigant public. Though reluctantly, yet for preserving and strengthening the
belief of the people in the institution of the Judiciary, we have decided to
consider this aspect and to give appropriate directions."
Sethi, J., enumerated them succinctly as
follows:
"(i) The Chief Justices of the High
Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where
the Judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the
Judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title date of reserving the
Judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court
officer concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts,
on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/ Readers of the
various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in
the matters where the Judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period
of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of
the arguments the Judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months the
concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the
pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating
the statement of such cases in which the Judgments have not been pronounced
within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments
amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication
be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a Judgment is not pronounced
within three months from the date of reserving Judgment any of the parties in
the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for
early Judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the
Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
(v) If the Judgment, for any reason, is not
pronounced within a period of six months any of the parties of the said lis
shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High
Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other
Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said
prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances."
The aforementioned principle has been
forcefully restated by the Supreme Court on several occasions including in ["Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Ors. Vs
State of Gujarat & Ors.", AIR 2004 SC 3467 Paras 80-82], ["Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana",
(2008) 7 SCC 96 Paras 5-10] and most recently in ["Ajay Singh & Anr. Vs State of
Chhattisgarh & Anr", AIR 2017 SC 310].
Judgments reserved and not delivered get
piled up, to the eternal prejudice of the litigant public. Tapping into the
portals of the Madras High Court, one is rudely reminded of a Circular of 2014
Vintage, issued at the instance of then Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now a Puisne
Judge of the Supreme Court). In that Circular, Court Officers before the
Principal Bench at Chennai & the Madurai Bench were directed to mention the
dates on which orders were reserved and the dates of their pronouncement,
immediately after the cause titles of the cases.
Interestingly, the Circular was in the ‘wake’
of a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated August 06, 2001. The
Circular was not contemporaneous, affording enough breathing space to the law
lords.
Cut to July 10, 2019. Then Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani had sent a
similar reminder to the Learned Judges pointing out that that the e-Courts
Website and National Judicial Data Grid are most accessed websites and as the
proceedings of the cases are being uploaded in the Website, the parties
concerned are watching the progress of the cases. She indicated that parties
were sending petitions/letters over the delay in pronouncement of orders, after
reserving the cases.
Hence, she felt that it was expedient to
proceed with the cases without any delay. When causes are reserved for
Judgments/Orders, she felt that the same has to be pronounced at the earliest
by keeping in mind the directions of the Supreme Court of India in Anil Rai (supra).
Conclusion
Adverse effect of the problem of not
pronouncing the reserved Judgments within a reasonable time was considered by
the Arrears Committee constituted by the Government of India on the
recommendation of the Chief Justices' Conference. In its report of 1989-90
Chapter VIII, the Committee recommended that reserved Judgments should
ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of
conclusion of the arguments. If, however, a reserved Judgment is not pronounced
for a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the arguments,
the Chief Justice was recommended to be authorised to either post the case for
delivering Judgment in Open Court or withdraw the case and post it for disposal
before an appropriate Bench.
While the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
applicable to Civil Courts, states that Judgements should be delivered within
30 days of arguments being closed, no such time restriction is found in the
context of Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prescribes
the manner in which a Judgement is to be delivered in a Criminal Case. No
provisions exist for the time to be taken in delivering Judgements by the High
Courts and the Supreme Court. The need for a time limit for delivering the
Judgement is not just to avoid delay, but also to prevent a miscarriage of
Justice, as the pronouncement of the Judgment is a part of Justice Dispensation
System, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where people
consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that
belief of the common man. Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people
to raise eye-brows, some time genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the
confidence of the people in the Judicial system. A time has come when the
Judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards
for the attainment of the Rule of Law. For the fault of a few, the glorious and
glittering name of the Judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the
policy and purpose of law, to have speedy Justice for which efforts are
required to be made to come to the expectation of the society of ensuring
speedy, untainted and unpolluted Justice.
As the saying goes, “Never
waste a good crisis”. If all reserved Judgments could come tumbling
out, as if in an assembly line, Justice may be done to We the People.
It may, however, not be out of place to
allude to the ongoing debate among advisers to policy makers that in the face
of inordinate delays and the institution’s inability to clear the backlog of
reserved judgments, as to why the Centre or state should not come out with
Ordinances to bring closure to at least vexed litigation, where national
interest may be overwhelming.
Such a course may be the need of the hour in
this virally vulnerable moment. But if that happens, it may not surely augur
well for the Judiciary as an institution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks