Fast-tracking justice delivery
by Mythili Bhusnurmath
Economic Times
If the death of the 23-yearold victim of gang rape in Delhi is not to be in vain, there are two fronts on which we must move in unison — improving policing and the justice delivery system — apart, of course, from societal change.
While improving policing is necessarily a painstaking long-term endeavour, improving the efficiency of our justice-delivery system is not. Contrary to widespread opinion, there are fairly simple ways to improve our justice-delivery system. Provided the government and the judiciary, in that order, are serious about it!
The first is to fast-track the system. The huge backlog of cases — more than three crore cases are reportedly pending before our high courts and subordinate courts — is one of the reasons both for low rate of conviction and the rise in crime rate. When criminal elements know they can get away literally with murder, there is no reason why they or other potential offenders should fear the heavy hand of the law.
So what can we do to ensure justice is meted out promptly? Usual suggestions include filling the vacancies in the judiciary, especially at the lower levels, increasing funding, improving court infrastructure and so on. But a simpler expedient and entirely within the government’s domain is to reduce litigation between the various arms of government.
Today, government is a litigant in about 70% of pending cases. About 60% of these are between the central and state governments, local authorities and public sector undertakings. A simple and effective way to reduce pendency in courts would, therefore, be for various arms of government to resolve their disputes through alternate dispute-resolution channels such as arbitration and compromise settlements rather than clog the courts.
This was one of the key suggestions of the 2010 National Litigation Policy. It urged government /government bodies/ undertakings to don the role of responsible litigants and not resort to litigation for the sake of litigating. Unfortunately, the suggestion has fallen on deaf ears. As the Delhi High Court noted in anguish in a recent dispute between the customs department, MMTC and Indian Bank, various arms of the government continue to battle it out in court. This must change since the only gainers in the process are the lawyers. A second way to improve court efficiency — and this again does not require rocket science — is video-recording of court proceedings. Strange as it may sound, today, there is no verbatim record of court proceedings in India. Court clerks take down whatever the judge dictates to them specifically, but there is no ‘ball-byball’ account as it were.
In contrast, recording — audio or video — is common in courts in the US. Several other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Namibia, Mexico and Malaysia video-record proceedings, with some like New Zealand allowing even televising, albeit with restrictions and control. Since October 2009, the proceedings of the UK Supreme Court (as the judicial part of the House of Lords is now known) are not only video-recorded, but are even open for television broadcast. In the past, courts in India have turned down pleas for such recordings. But the Supreme Court has recently agreed to examine a proposal to video-record court proceedings in a petition filed by NGO Janhit Manch and some others. As senior advocate Arun Mohan argues in his book, Justice, Court and Delays, video cameras installed in the courtrooms can create an accurate and, therefore, more useful record of court proceedings, thereby cutting down on delays and wastage of judicial resources; a view with which Supreme Court Advocate Indira Unninayar concurs.
Studies by NGOs like the Washington-based International Network of Promotion of Law (Inprol) have shown that video recording of proceedings ensures accuracy of records. Further, by preserving (and making available) matters that are not apparent from the written record, such as demeanour, voice inflections, body language and so on, judges can form a better view of the witnesses, thereby improving the quality of justice. Also, reviews by the appeals court judges will be facilitated since rather than relying on memory or a few scanty notes, while deliberating on a judgment, judges will be able to replay for themselves the recorded proceedings of any hearing from day one right up to the final arguments.
Research findings have shown recording court proceedings improves the justice delivery in a number of ways. One, by enhancing the speed of the trial and other proceedings, thus reducing caseloads and allowing more people to access justice.
Two, by discouraging lawyers from engaging in delaying tactics and causing distractions, thereby enabling the presiding judge/magistrate to devote full attention to the case on hand.
Three, by producing a better record, thereby increasing the likelihood that mistakes made at the trial stage can be rectified at the appellate process. And, last, but not the least, by promoting transparency and more effectively deterring corrupt practices in court.
Do we need any more reasons? Surely not! Not unless we wish to concur with Judge Sturges’ wry observation, “Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel!”
No comments:
Post a Comment