A famous quote from William Edwart Gladstone (1809–1898), a great English political leader who was also a former Prime Minister, says “Justice delayed is justice denied”. The meaning of this phrase is that if justice is not done at the right time, then even its commitment at a later holds no significance because a period of time was spent committing injustice.
The credibility of Indian judicial systems is reducing in the eyes of common people because of long delays at all levels of judiciary and the reluctance of all the judges to pass the verdict and the inevitable adjournments. This is the reason behind mafia finding favour among the people who believe in instant justice.
However, it is very difficult in reality to describe the delay in justice without clarification. Since the time of seeking justice, there are so many prerequisites and formalities in the form of rules and regulations and prescribed procedures regulating court proceedings which are again time consuming but impossible to evade that it gets very difficult to deliver justice in time.
Indian judicial system is the last ray of hope for Indian citizens. However, the Indian judiciary pass judgement on the basis of facts and evidences, not conscience or morals. Once the facts are in hands, all it require for the fast deliverance of justice are arguments and hearing. A judiciary which takes into account only evidences and facts should deliver fast justice rather than weaken the spirit of the complainants and the defendants with unnecessary expenditure and time delays. This compels them to engage in ‘out of Court settlements’ which are relatively cheaper and quicker, thus, leading to trust deficit in our Judicial System.
The Preamble to the Indian Constitution, among other things, announces that: “We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens—Justice, social, economic and political”. However, even after six decades of Independence, numerous laws are available but of little help to impart justice. The founders of our constitution had set ‘Justice’ as the top priority and our preamble to the constitution also established justice at a higher order than other features like liberty, equality and fraternity. People look up to judiciary to seek justice.
Indian judicial system is regarded as one of the vital pillars of democracy, and is held in high regard along with media while the other major pillars such as administrative system and police are considered to be highly corrupted. Political class, bureaucracy and police are often blamed to be corrupt in India, while judiciary in comparison is seen as an institution that answer for the grievances of Indian people.
As Chief Justice Burger noticed: “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgement of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law in the larger sense cannot fulfil its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets”.
It is well known that as on 1 January 2015, 62,794 cases were pending for judgement before the Honourable Supreme Court. According to the available data, the total pending cases up to the year ending 2013 for the 24 high courts and lower courts were found to be 44.5 lakh and a huge 2.6 crore, respectively. Out of the 44 lakh cases in pendency in the high courts, 10,23,739 were criminal and 34,32,493 were civil in nature.
Major factors responsible for Delay in Law: The most important factor is the unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases.
(a) One of the main cause behind this gloomy situation is the hopelessly insufficient number of courts along with judges in the country.
(b) Another reason in addition to inadequacy of the number of judges is the incompetency and inefficiency of judiciary.
(c) Lawyers with hidden motives in the habit of seeking adjournment are another reason behind the delay.
(d) Another reason is numerous amendment of laws.
(e) Another significant reason for delay is absence of work culture in the courts.
(f) Incompetent nature of justice impedes building of peace culture in the society and also undermine the internal security of the country.
The Arrears Committee led by Justice V. S. Mallimath in 1990, found the following primary factors responsible for delays in law:
(i) Litigation explosion;
(ii) Accumulation of first appeal;
(iii) Inadequacy of staff attached to the High Court, i.e. vacancy crisis in Indian Judiciary;
(iv) Inordinate concentration of work in the hands of some members of the Bar;
(v) Lack of punctuality among judges;
(vi) Granting of unnecessary adjournments;
(vii) Indiscriminate closure of Courts;
(viii) Indiscriminate resort to writ jurisdiction;
(ix) Inadequacy of classification and granting of cases;
(x) Inordinate delay in the supply of certified copies of judgements and orders etc
Remedies to Overcome Delay: Some Suggestions
More courts should be established in the country and more judges should be recruited in proportion to the population to address the pendency of cases, as the ever-increasing population and the cases associated with it far exceeds in comparison to the number of courts or judicial staff available. According to an estimate, India has the lowest ratio of number of judges per million population in the world, standing at 11 judges per million population. Hence, the number of judges need to be increased especially at the local level to attend to the grievances of common people.
The Supreme Court judges Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat quoted the aforementioned poem of Julia A. F. Cabney in ‘Little Things’ while passing judgement on the infamous Best Bakery riot case in Gujarat on 12 April 2004.
In conclusion, the disappointing figures on the chronic backlog of court cases over the last six decades indicate the growing trust deficit in the Indian legal system. However, taking measures for multi-pronged reforms is a long-term project and it will need the engagement of judges first to bring out any significant changes to their profession. A crucial step towards fast settlement of sexual crimes was taken to address the trust deficit through the opening of Fast-track courts all across the country. However, speedy justice also has its own challenges.
It is true that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ but, the opposite also holds true that ‘swift justice is injustice’. There is some resentment among the judges and observers that the quality of justice administered through fast track courts is questionable despite their reducing the backlog in terms of cases.