Tag Archive | Opacity

Don’t Tempt Citizen To Take Law Into His Hand: Prez – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                               February 23, 2008

English: President of India

President Pratibha Patil (Photo: Wikipedia)

Don’t Tempt Citizen To Take Law Into His Hand: Prez

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Stressing the need for ”incorruptible justice,” President Pratibha Patil today cautioned against tempting the common man ”to take law into his own hand.”

”We cannot allow a situation where the common man is tempted to take law into his own hand and subscribe to the deviant culture of the lynch mob,” she said inaugurating a conference on Judicial Reforms.
She was emphatic that ”the formal adjudicatory machinery has to reign supreme.”
Noting that India’s judicial administration is not without ”blemishes,” Mrs Patil stressed the need to ”introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to” expectations.
She asked her audience, made up mostly of judges and lawyers, not to be ”touchy” and face issues squarely.
”Time has come when we as stakeholders, without being unduly touchy and sensitive to criticism… collectively introspect the causes of the ills of judicial administration and find solutions squarely,” she said.
The event presided over by India’s Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan was addressed among others by Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj and Bar Council of India chairman Gopakumaran Nair.
The two-day conference organised by a Confedration of Indian Bar to discuss the ”disquieting” delay in delivery of justice has more than half of Supreme Court judges listed among speakers.
India’s justice system has in recent years been a focus of much public debate and comment over such concerns as delays, huge backlogs, shortage of judges, unending judicial vacancies and opacity, especially in the area of judicial hiring and accountability.
Alluding presumably to numerous conferences and seminars on reforming the justice system that appear to get nowhere, President Patil remarked: ”We talk incessantly about delays.”
”But now the time has arrived to launch a crusade against the scourge of arrears. Both the Bar and the Bench as equal partners in the administration of justice must address themselves to this problem.”
”Admittedly,” the President went on, ”the realm of judicial administration is not without its own share of inadequacies and blemishes.
”Time has come when we need to seriously introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to its expectations of walking the enlightened way by securing complete justice to all and standing out as the beacon of truth, faith and hope.”
Touching on a key issue, Mrs Patil said, ”case disposals are excruciatingly time consuming. This agonising delay has rendered the common man’s knock on the doors of justice a frustrating experience.
The issue of delay in courts has been debated for decades, without much avail. Experts believe lawmakers must take an initiative to sharpen laws and make them truly deterrent.
Mrs Patil called for making legal procedures ”simple, streamlined, rational, easily understandable and commonsensical.”
She reminded members of her erstwhile tribe that lawyers were trustees of justice and ”must set high standards of probity and rectitude.”
On another key area, she said citizens’ access to law ”remains limited due to prohibitive costs of quality legal advice. It is commonplace to hear that law has become the luxury of the rich.
”Legal aid can go a long way in helping the indigents secure justice,” she said adding that the present system ”needs to be improved.”
She reminded that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms need to be encouraged, but ”cannot aspire to substitute the formal courts.”
She said she recently came across the Karnataka High Court’s Bangalore Mediation Centre where 86 mediators had settled more than 1,000 cases in a year, taking an average 131 minutes per case– which ”is worthy of emulation.”
Justice Balakrishnan concurred that Judicial Reforms was a subject ”so much of talked about but too little done.”
Balakrishnan said India had a nationwide network of more than 14,000 courts– about 12,500 judge working strength– dealing with 40 million cases.
He said each judge handled on an average nearly 4,000 cases, which ”is too high as compared to the average load per-Judge in other countries.”
He acknowledged that ”the general impression of the people is that a large number of cases are being delayed and, if any case is filed, it would take years to get a relief.
”This impression about the performance of Indian Judiciary is not fully correct,” Justice Balakrishnan asserted, but went on to acknowledge that some 60 per cent cases were more than a year old.
He said 90 per cent of delayed cases were pending in subordinate courts.
He suggested setting up a national planning and management system for administration of justice and added that the Bhopal-based National Judicial Academy was preparing a case management system to avoid delays.
He also suggested:
— Legislative reform to remove the bottlenecks that adversely affect adjudication;
— Strengthening the Bar;
— Strengthening legal education;
— Legislative reform to strengthen judges’ powers to control judicial processes to ensure just and efficient outcomes in line with international reforms; and
— Satisfactory framework for judicial accountability.
He offered the suggestions as ”broad outlines” to be discussed and designed by competent people.
Justice Balakrishnan also drew attention to a source of overcrowding in courts.
”In a large number of cases pending in Courts, especially in higher Courts, government is one of the parties either as defendant or as appellant.”
He blamed such litigations on lack of proper governmental administration, pointing out that if authorities took impartial decisions, citizens would not normally be driven to litigation.
”Lack of proper and good governance largely contributes to the number of cases in subordinate courts,” Justice Balakrishnan said.
”When it comes to disposal of cases, the delay is disquieting,” Confederation president Pravin Parekh said, citing case arrears now close to 30 million.
He counted 46,926 cases pending in the apex court, 37,00,223 cases pending in high courts and 2,52,85,982 cases pending in district and subordinate courts.
The seminar will be attended by some 1400 delegates, including 14 sitting judges of the apex court, which has a strength of 26.
UNI MJ KD KN2045

Think About It But Don’t Ask Questions… – By Mukesh Jhangiani

March 11, 2007

Think About It But Don’t Ask Questions…*

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Asserting that judicial corruption is existent– albeit ”not rampant”– justice experts have stressed reforming the way judges are appointed and disciplined.

But discussing Appointment and Removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court, panelists acknowledged last week that such reforms might be struck down by the courts as offending the basic structure doctrine.
That doctrine is an offshoot of a Supreme Court ruling of April 24, 1973 that Parliament cannot amend India’s Constitution insofar as its ”basic structutre” is concerned.
The panelists who included former Chief Justice of India J S Verma and former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar went over changes the government proposes to make in law.
The other panelists: former Attorney General Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, senior advocates K K Venugopal and A K Ganguly and journalist Harish Khare.
The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 now before Parliament seeks to establish a National Judicial Council to look into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts; regulate the procedure for such investigation, inquiry and proof; and provide for minor disciplinary measures.
Key changes allow complaints against errant judges– to be rejected or processed by a judges forum– resulting in either minor measures or removal.
Reform is also intended to introduce transparency in judges’ appointments, a process mired at present in opacity.
Over the past few weeks, for instance, President A P J Abdul Kalam has raised queries on two senior judges’ appointments– reflecting incongruities in the process at work.
”There is an urgent need of a legislation for establishing a National Judicial Council,” Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj has noted in the Objects and Reasons of the Bill.
The Minister said the Council would look into ”allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court…”
He said it was based on judicial independence, a fundamental of the Constitution inseparable from judicial accountability.
Initiating the discussion, Sorabjee said ”There is judicial corruption,” but ”not rampant.”
Sorabjee wondered how former CJI S P Bharucha arrived at a figure of 20 per cent judges being corrupt– an estimate some of his successors have tended to discount.
Some three years ago the Bar Council of India, the statutory body of the nation’s million or so lawyers, demanded transfer of 130 judges– nearly a fifth of incumbents– from High Courts where their kin practise.
The practice is among don’ts spelt out under the BCI Rules of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.
Critics say by most standards any sort of misconduct by a learned Judge should be unimaginable.
They cite a Delhi HC Additional Judge whose resignation brought to the fore allegations that he availed himself of indecent hospitality while the host wrote a ‘judicial’ order in his name in an adjacent room.
Critics say that since a Supreme Court judgement in 1993, the onus of appointing Judges is on the judiciary, but no responsibility is fixed for lapses by selectors.
Justice Verma spoke of a perception that what the executive did when it controlled the hiring process is now done by the judiciary, although there may be a difference of degree.
He said given a provision for complaint, a Chief Justice seeking a Judge’s explanation need no longer face the counter-question: ‘Who are you ?’
But he questioned so-called minor measures, pointing out the untenability of public reprimand of a judge. After that ”how do you expect a Judge to function.”
Justice Verma was against excluding the CJI from the purview of the proposed legislation. ”I don’t think it’s advisable. The CJI must not be excluded.”
The CJI, he said, is essentially no different from other Judges but such exclusion may send out a signal to the contrary.
Most speakers opposed a limitation proviso in the Bill which seeks to disallow complaints arisen before the enactment.
Justice Verma emphasised that ”Your past should have nothing to hide.”
Hailing the complaint provision, Venugopal said once a show cause goes out to a Judge, all other Judges would ”sit back and take notice”.
He said the very fact of notice would have a salutary effect on Judges, but Sorabjee did not appear to think so.
Venugopal acknowledged the probability that the reform might not go far. ”It may be struck down.” Khare stressed that the judiciary set its house in order.
Sachar said there was ”no need for appeal” provided in the proposed draft against a disciplinary decision taken after an elaborate procedure.
Ganguly questioned long gaps in appointing Judges. He said at times senior advocates sounded for judgeship did not hear about it again for years.
Ganguly suggested letting the Prime Minister preside over the group that selects Judges, but the idea was considered inappropriate by another panelist as the Prime Minister is head of the government which is often a litigant.
Concluding the discussion, the panelists told the mostly lawyer audience to ”think about” the issues– but allowed no questions.
An advocate who sat through the discussion said afterwards the key problem with the system was appointments made from a close circle of professionals– what he dubbed ”judicial inbreeding”.
Ravi Mohan acknowledged in reply to a question that his assertion was not based on an academic or administrative study but his empirical experience.
The remedy: make the system transparent, he said, adding that all consideration in respect of an appointment from the first step– inviting biodata– onward must be public knowledge.
”It’s well known that no disinfectant works better than sunlight through an open window.”
UNI MJ HS MIR KP1152

Think About It But Don’t Ask Questions…* – By Mukesh Jhangiani – March 11, 2007

People Need ‘Incorruptible’ Justice, Prez Tells Judges – By Mukesh Jhangiani

 

English: Balanced scale of Justice

Balanced scale of Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

                                                                                               February 23, 2008

People Need ‘Incorruptible’ Justice, Prez Tells Judges*

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – President Pratibha Patil today called for an easily accessible judicial machinery which dispenses ”affordable and incorruptible justice” to the people.

”We need to have in place a judicial machinery which is easily accessible and dispenses affordable and incorruptible justice to the people,” she said inaugurating a conference on Judicial Reforms.

Noting that India’s judicial administration is not without ”blemishes,” Mrs Patil stressed the need to ”introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to” expectations.

The event presided over by India’s Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan was addressed among others by Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj and Bar Council of India chairman Gopakumaran Nair.

President Patil warned against letting the common man ”take law into his own hand,” stressing that ”the formal adjudicatory machinery has to reign supreme.”

She said, ”We cannot allow a situation where the common man is tempted to take law into his own hand and subscribe to the deviant culture of the lynch mob.”

The two-day conference organised by a Confederation of Indian Bar to discuss the ”disquieting” delay in delivery of justice has more than half of Supreme Court judges listed among speakers.

The meet is being held at a time when the judicial system has been a focus of much public debate and comment, arising from such concerns as court delays, case arrears, shortage of judges, unending judicial vacancies and opacity, especially in the area of judicial hiring and accountability.

Alluding presumably to numerous conferences and seminars on reforming the justice system that appear to get nowhere, President Patil remarked: ”We talk incessantly about delays.”

”But now the time has arrived to launch a crusade against the scourge of arrears. Both the Bar and the Bench as equal partners in the administration of justice must address themselves to this problem.”

”Admittedly,” the President went on, ”the realm of judicial administration is not without its own share of inadequacies and blemishes.

”Time has come when we need to seriously introspect whether our judicial machinery has lived up to its expectations of walking the enlightened way by securing complete justice to all and standing out as the beacon of truth, faith and hope.”

Touching on a key issue, Mrs Patil said, ”case disposals are excruciatingly time consuming. This agonising delay has rendered the common man’s knock on the doors of justice a frustrating experience.

The issue of delay in courts has been debated for decades, without much avail. Experts believe lawmakers must take an initiative to sharpen laws and make them truly deterrent.

Mrs Patil called for making legal procedures ”simple, streamlined, rational, easily understandable and commonsensical.”

She reminded members of her erstwhile tribe that lawyers were trustees of justice and ”must set high standards of probity and rectitude.”

On another key area, she said citizens’ access to law ”remains limited due to prohibitive costs of quality legal advice. It is commonplace to hear that law has become the luxury of the rich.

”Legal aid can go a long way in helping the indigents secure justice,” she said adding that the present system ”needs to be improved.”

She reminded that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms need to be encouraged, but ”cannot aspire to substitute the formal courts.”

She said she recently came across the Karnataka High Court’s Bangalore Mediation Centre where 86 mediators had settled more than 1,000 cases in a year, taking an average 131 minutes per case– which ”is worthy of emulation.”

Justice Balakrishnan concurred that Judicial Reforms was a subject ”so much of talked about but too little done.”

Balakrishnan said India had a nationwide network of more than 14,000 courts– about 12,500 judge working strength– dealing with 40 million cases.

He said each judge handled on an average nearly 4,000 cases, which ”is too high as compared to the average load per-Judge in other countries.”

He acknowledged that ”the general impression of the people is that a large number of cases are being delayed and, if any case is filed, it would take years to get a relief.

”This impression about the performance of Indian Judiciary is not fully correct,” Justice Balakrishnan asserted, but went on to acknowledge that some 60 per cent cases were more than a year old.

He said 90 per cent of delayed cases were pending in subordinate courts.

He suggested setting up a national planning and management system for administration of justice and added that the Bhopal-based National Judicial Academy was preparing a case management system to avoid delays.

He also suggested:

— Legislative reform to remove the bottlenecks that adversely affect adjudication;

— Strengthening the Bar;

— Strengthening legal education;

— Legislative reform to strengthen judges’ powers to control judicial processes to ensure just and efficient outcomes in line with international reforms; and

— Satisfactory framework for judicial accountability.

He offered the suggestions as ”broad outlines” to be discussed and designed by competent people.

Justice Balakrishnan also drew attention to a source of overcrowding in courts.

”In a large number of cases pending in Courts, especially in higher Courts, government is one of the parties either as defendant or as appellant.”

He blamed such litigations on lack of proper governmental administration, pointing out that if authorities took impartial decisions, citizens would not normally be driven to litigation.

”Lack of proper and good governance largely contributes to the number of cases in subordinate courts,” Justice Balakrishnan said.

”When it comes to disposal of cases, the delay is disquieting,” Confederation president Pravin Parekh said, citing case arrears now close to 30 million.

He counted 46,926 cases pending in the apex court, 37,00,223 cases pending in high courts and 2,52,85,982 cases pending in district and subordinate courts.

The seminar will be attended by some 1400 delegates, including 14 sitting judges of the apex court, which has a strength of 26.

UNI MJ KD BST1837