Login Register
Follow Us

Need to weed out cases that have lost meaning

The courts need to weed out legacy cases that have over the years lost their meaning.

Show comments

Saurabh Malik

The courts need to weed out legacy cases that have over the years lost their meaning. In a setup that largely depends upon the courts for resolution of disputes and redressal of grievances, justice can never be segregated from the circumstances in which it needs to be delivered, and the time when it needs to be imparted, for it to be consequential.

For, end does not justify the means and the delay in reaching it. To say that justice has eventually been done may actually mean judgment has finally been delivered in a case that has not been dealt with expeditiously.

Cases have to be decided, and decided fast. In a society, any society, a law is a law until it is enforced. It’s only after its implementation in letter and in spirit, and that too timely, that one can expect justice on its basis. The appearance of justice is essentially different from the essence of it; and time taken to deliver it is the determining factor.

But the judicial anvil, by its very nature, has very little space and can accommodate not many cases at a given point of time. The High Court only recently found itself deciding a case that required no decision 23 years after it was filed.

The case, under ordinary circumstances, should not have taken more than five minutes for its disposal as the petitioner had challenged an order he had unsuccessfully contested three years back. But it remained on the list primarily because it could not come up for effective hearing.

When pendency threatens to bury justice under its own weight, the need of the hour is to look at every possible factor for finding a solution to the problem that has attained alarming proportions already. The Punjab and Haryana High Court alone has, as of now, approximately 4.5 lakh cases pending.

For ensuring timely decision on pending cases, required is identification and removal of matters where relief sought has lost its meaning, or no relief is made out, instead of just setting targets for the Judges and monitoring the disposal of cases.

Pleas, over a period of time, often tend to lose the very purpose for which these were initially filed. It is a fact that cannot be denied in a system where old pending cases are pushed down the list by new cases that keep figuring before the Benches.

In abundance are examples. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No.3448 of 1988, virtually told petitioner ML Zakhmi that nothing could be done about his case. The Bench asserted the writ petition was filed in 1988. But “unfortunately for the petitioner” the matter came up for hearing only in May 2010. The High Court was more candid than candied.

Cases like this, the High Court admitted, gave a new life to the cliché “justice delayed is justice denied”. The Bench said, while disposing of the matter, that the case could have “obtained a different dispensation” had it been taken up with alacrity.

The denial of justice in such cases needs to be prevented from spilling over to the new ones and this is required to be done by removing the old infructuous ones from the list. It is suspected that many of the petitioners are no more there to pursue their grievances. When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions.

The task of ascertaining such matters essentially needs to travel beyond the domain of the over-burdened judiciary. The Advocate-General’s office, too, needs to step in and place before the Bench cases that are covered by judgments and laws well established. It also needs to find out from its own records cases that could not withstand the pressure of time, which defeated the very purpose behind filing the pleas – now retired employees who once sought promotions; candidates who decades back sought directions for recruitment. The list is inexhaustible. Identification needs to be effectively followed by placing the matters before specially constituted Benches for disposal of such cases after listing them out-of-turn for hearing. State being the biggest litigant, the results can be astonishing.

For a programme to be successful, required is vigorous involvement of all stakeholders – the Judges, the advocates and even the litigants. The advocates, too, could be asked to inform the Bench about cases in which adjudication will not serve any purpose. A notice on the High Court website inviting advocates to come forward with the list after consultation with their clients can do the trick.

Former Judges - Justices and Chief Justices - are goldmine of information. Any project that aims at improving the functioning of the justice delivery mechanism without asking them to play their part cannot run effectively. Seminars and conferences are, perhaps, the best platforms for them to come out with details of initiatives they took during their tenure.

The stakeholders must realise that the old order can yield place to new only after it is provided with enough space to expand – space infructuous cases can eventually provide. 


Law and Order
‘Fair investigation & fair trial are concomitant’

Modifying the oft-quoted phrase “Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that fair investigation and fair trial should not only be done, but also seen to be done. In the judgment that may soon be quoted as a precedent by accused apprehending unfair probe, Justice Anil Kshetarpal has asserted that fair and impartial investigation could to be ensured when the probe was carried out by a person absolutely impartial, unbiased and unmotivated. The investigating officer was required to bring out “the real unvarnished truth”, which was possible only when investigation was conducted properly. “Fairness of investigation is important not only for the accused but also for the victim. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant, which is not only be done but also seen to be done for preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Kshetarpal added.

Show comments
Show comments

Top News

Most Read In 24 Hours