Technology can work wonder in administration of justice

Former President of India K.R. Narayanan once famously said ‘Courts in India are like casinos’. Satyamev Jayate (truth prevails), is emblazoned in all courts across the country but justice is often denied to most of the litigants. One cannot say it for certain that he or she would get the justice despite the law and facts in his/her favour.  

Illustrious writer Charles Dickens wrote a famous novel ‘Bleak House’, which deals with a well-known fictional case ‘Jarndyce and Jarndyce’. In the case of family dispute two members approach the court which took so much time that by the time the judgment came, both of them not only became old but pauper as well.  More or less the same story is still found in India where the cases linger on, from one court to other, for years nay, decades together. By the time the justice is delivered it loses all relevance for the parties.

This trite sentence of ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is being heard in India for decades. Surprisingly nothing tangible has been done so far to rectify it. There is a Law Commission in India. which has submitted many reports for improvement in the justice delivery system but they all have been of no avail. Members of Parliament, cutting across party lines, cry from the house tops for the simplification of the justice delivery system but they also have miserably failed to give any solution. Similarly judges and lawyers speak volumes for making the justice ‘cheap and speedy’ but the result is here for all to see.

Coming to the main point nobody knows it for sure in what way the judgement will go. That is why, the metaphor of casino may appear to be derogatory but that is a true statement of fact. In India we do not have the inquisitorial system of justice. Our is adversarial system, where delay is inherent. The plaintiff approaches the court then the reply comes from the other party, which again is replied by the complainant or claimant. The documentary proofs are filed as evidence then both parties and their witnesses are cross examined. Finally, the advocates argue the case with the citations of the precedents of the case laws and other relevant materials. Ultimately the decision is pronounced by the judge which takes many years. Needless to mention both parties and their advocates adopt unethical methods to win the case. Advocates are expected to be the friends and the officers of the courts and their job is to help in the just administration of justice. But when you speak to any lawyer, he will tell that he is more accountable to his client, who has paid him because clients want him to win the case by means fair or foul. And that is why, the element of dishonesty has crept into the justice delivery system right from litigants up to the level of the judges. There is case of a workman K.K. Verma, who started fighting for his reinstatement in service in 1985, won his case from the Labour Court but the matter is still pending in the Delhi High Court, although he has retired two years back. Is it not sordid commentary on the justice delivery system?

The adversarial system of justice is, without doubt, time consuming but with the help of modern technology revolutionary changes can be brought about in the administration of justice. The number of judges in the ratio of population and litigation is certainly an important factor but only by increasing the number of judges speedy justice cannot been ensured unless and until the modern technology is introduced in full measure. For example, the filing of the cases can be done though the electronic medium without wasting much of the time in registry, defects can be cured without creating any hassle. Evidences can be recorded through video. A time slot can be allotted to advocates to argue the cases. The adjournments on flimsy grounds should be stopped and if adjournments are sought on unconvincing grounds then reasonable cost should be imposed. The technology can work wonder and therefore it is the only ray of hope. It will kick out in competent judges, insincere lawyers and litigation loving litigants.

How the Supreme Court can reduce its burden?

Mondays and Fridays are the miscellaneous days in the Supreme Court of India. Court Rooms get so crowded that it often becomes difficult to reach in the front row when the case is called for hearing. One cannot move in the lobbies without grazing others. Nearly one thousand cases, mainly Special Leave Petitions, are taken up on each Monday and Friday and more than 90% of them are dismissed in limine. Hardly in10% cases notices are issued. One who has been practicing in the Supreme Court will say, without batting even eye lid, that it has literally been converted into to a Court of Appeal. Most of the SLPs are dismissed/admitted in less than two minutes of hearing. Some say that they are not decided but butchered.
There is not denying that with the rising number of cases the Supreme Court judges are overburdened. It does not mean that the people should be discouraged from filing the new cases. On the other hand, it is a good sign that people are becoming aware of getting their rights through the courts. Before deciding the fate of SLPs, the judges have to read at least the operative portions of the judgments of the High Courts or Tribunals. Even if four or five cases, on an average, are admitted by one court on each Monday and Friday they add up, at least, 100 cases to the docket every week. Only three days viz. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are left for hearing and deciding the earlier admitted cases. Some of the cases are heard for 2-3 days in row. Normally in Supreme Court a minimum of two judge bench sits in the Court. Many times three judge bench also hear the case. Thus only 11 or 12 benches effectively work on weekdays. It is, therefore, clear that the number of the cases, which are decided in a month is far less than the admitted cases resulting into back log.
The scope for settling the law, which is what is the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court, then goes to back burner. That is why, the demand for having four Courts of Appeal, in different parts of country, is gathering momentum. Once the task of deciding the SLPs goes to the Courts of Appeal; the Apex Court will be left for dealing exclusively with constitutional matters and finally settling the law, but this is easier said than done. The biggest impediment for having the Courts of Appeal is the Constitution itself where there is provision for only the High Courts and the Supreme Courts. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court decides for setting up the Courts of Appeal the Constitution of India will have to be amended.
I have two suggestions to make to reduce the burden of the Supreme Court even without having the Courts of Appeal. The first is the admission of SLPs can be left to the Registrars (Judicial), who could be retired High Court judges and their number could be enhanced to 20-25. They can sit on all five days to decide the admission of SLPs.
The cases of the Constitutional importance would then get the priority by the Supreme Court. The number of the judges on the constitutional bench should be not be less than seven or nine. It may be recalled here when the Supreme Court came in to existence there were only eight judges and their number was increased gradually by the Parliament, which at present is 31. In the beginning the Constitutional Bench was composed of five judges but now when the number of judges has already gone up and the constitutional issues are more complicated, it is better that it should be settled by larger benches. In this way the Supreme Court would be able to do justice with the cause for which it is meant.
The second suggestion is the maximum use of software technology. In most of the SLPs questions of law are not raised, they discuss more about the erroneous and perverse decisions of the High Courts based more on facts than on law. This can be largely weeded out by the artificial intelligence of the computer software, which can be specially developed for the purpose. Thus without incurring enormous amount of money for developing the infrastructures for Courts of Appeal in different parts of the country, the Supreme Court can be transformed to be immensely useful with the existing infrastructures by adding some facilities and judicious use of modern technology.