Popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice has certainly not been less in the twentieth than in previous centuries. In a period of particularly accelerated tempo, it would seem easy to explain the prevailing dissatisfaction in terms of institutional transitions. If, however, the phenomenon is constant, it can hardly be explained entirely as the result of changing conditions. An explanation solely in term of sociological differentials can be adequate only if more fundamental factors are absent. It is for instance tempting to assign the prevalence of perjury, which so often in modern courts undermined the administration of justice, entirely because of the decline in influence of religious ideas. But perjury has always been a not infrequent crime. It should certainly be no less powerful a restraint to fear the punishments of this world than to fear the torments of the next. Authority has maintained itself somehow despite the decay of religious institutions. To take another stock illustration, the vast improvement in means of communication has undoubtedly given the criminal facile means to attempt escape but the advantage is balanced by the case with which public authorities may pursue him. There is again the pernicious influence of the modern city. To it is attributed the congestion of the courts which is supposed to be the very basis of the modern maladministration of justice. But mere size hardly account for the evils of metropolitan justice. As a matter of fact the city has been the originator of most of the improvements of procedure in the history of legal systems. If there are more litigants in the city, it has been the necessary wealth to secure additional judges and good lawyers.
There is a general consensus that our judicial system today from the highest to the lowest is suffering from many ailments. Everyone speaking about judicial system starts with an apology and admission of the falling standards. Justice V D Tulzapurkar of the Supreme Court has observed:
If an independent judiciary is regarded as the heart of a republic, then the Indian Republic is at present suffering from serious heart ailment. In fact, the superior judiciary of the country has of late been under constant onslaughts, external as well as internal which are bound to cripple the health, welfare and progress of our body politic, as an ailing heart cannot ensure vigorous blood supply for the sound health of its people.
Former Chief Justice P N Bhagwati in his Law Day speech in 1985 said:
I am pained to observe that the judicial system in the country is almost on the verge of collapse----Our judicial system is crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We often utter this platitudinous phrase to express our indignation at the delay in disposal of cases but this indignation is only at an intellectual and years to get justice. They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait for years and years to get justice. They have to pass through the labyrinth of one court to another until their patience gets exhausted and they give up hope in utter despair---- The only persons who benefit by the delay in our court are the dishonest who can with impunity avoid carrying out their legal obligations for years and each affluent person who obtains orders and stays or injunctions against Government and public authorities and then continue to enjoy the benefit of such stay or injunction for years, often at the cost of public interest.
About Supreme Court, the Chief Justice observed:
The Supreme Court is today on the brink of collapse with the enormous inflow of cases and heavy arrears. I, for me, don't think that a large increase in the number of Judges is desirable. If the number of judges is unduly increased, the Supreme Court will become like a glorified High Court with fragmented bench structures. The Supreme Court will lose its identity as a Summit Court and there will be no cohesiveness and uniformity. Equally I am not in favour of curtailing in any manner whatsoever the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
He further observed about High Court, " So also the situation in High Courts is quite alarming."
There is a general consensus that our judicial system today from the highest to the lowest is suffering from many ailments. Everyone speaking about judicial system starts with an apology and admission of the falling standards. Justice V D Tulzapurkar of the Supreme Court has observed:
If an independent judiciary is regarded as the heart of a republic, then the Indian Republic is at present suffering from serious heart ailment. In fact, the superior judiciary of the country has of late been under constant onslaughts, external as well as internal which are bound to cripple the health, welfare and progress of our body politic, as an ailing heart cannot ensure vigorous blood supply for the sound health of its people.
Former Chief Justice P N Bhagwati in his Law Day speech in 1985 said:
I am pained to observe that the judicial system in the country is almost on the verge of collapse----Our judicial system is crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We often utter this platitudinous phrase to express our indignation at the delay in disposal of cases but this indignation is only at an intellectual and years to get justice. They have to pass through in our own courts have to wait for years and years to get justice. They have to pass through the labyrinth of one court to another until their patience gets exhausted and they give up hope in utter despair---- The only persons who benefit by the delay in our court are the dishonest who can with impunity avoid carrying out their legal obligations for years and each affluent person who obtains orders and stays or injunctions against Government and public authorities and then continue to enjoy the benefit of such stay or injunction for years, often at the cost of public interest.
About Supreme Court, the Chief Justice observed:
The Supreme Court is today on the brink of collapse with the enormous inflow of cases and heavy arrears. I, for me, don't think that a large increase in the number of Judges is desirable. If the number of judges is unduly increased, the Supreme Court will become like a glorified High Court with fragmented bench structures. The Supreme Court will lose its identity as a Summit Court and there will be no cohesiveness and uniformity. Equally I am not in favour of curtailing in any manner whatsoever the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
He further observed about High Court, " So also the situation in High Courts is quite alarming."
0 comments: