It is very astonishing indeed that instead of taking the challenge of Coronavirus head-on, the Supreme of India has decided to work with only six benches against the usual 14 benches from Monday till further decision. The crowd in the courts and courtrooms can be minimised not by the half-hearted measures but by modernisation through the use of the Artificial Intelligence (AI). This is also the best time when live streaming of the courts must be taken up in the right earnest.
Why should the cause list be prepared in a manner when it is almost certain that the case would not reach the Board for hearing on that day? Sometimes a case is shown to be in the cause list for days together keeping the concerned Advocates and clients on tenterhooks. This problem can certainly be solved with the help of technology and better scheduling of time. Most of the cases of the routine nature can be disposed of by the Technology itself providing much time to judges to make its better and fruitful use.
As a student of law, we were told that an advocate must follow the principle of ABC i.e. Accuracy, Brevity and Conciseness. This principle is also applicable for journalists but unfortunately, it is followed more in the breach than in the observance. Prolixity of averments in petitions, counters and judgments make them boring but again regrettably that has become the part of the habit of the lawyers and judges. The first thing that can be done by the Courts is to strictly follow the ABC.
Secondly, the lawyers should be allotted time to argue their cases with a maximum of ten to fifteen minutes to spill over the stipulated period. If it is adhered to, it will be a big time-saver. But today what we find is that some of the senior counsel are allowed to argue their cases for days together generating more fire than light. Needless, to say that if any advocate wants to read out from the case precedents, he or she should be stopped and asked to submit the list of those cases or books specifying the page numbers. Here also the Artificial Intelligence will be immensely useful.
And the third thing, which can be done is that in the cause list itself the tentative time of the cases to be taken up should be given and that will not cause unnecessary thronging of the courtrooms. If this procedure or any better method with the help of experts is adopted, it can certainly be a huge relief to the judges, advocates and litigants as well.
The Supreme Court has done well for filing of the petitions and replies on A4 size papers to be used on sides but why should it not go paperless by stopping the use of papers lock, stock and barrel?
Now coming to the Coronavirus, which has virtually compelled the courts to go for the lockdown. It is a panic reaction and it will not serve much until and unless some effective measures are adopted with the help of technology. It will give further rise to scaremongering. After all, no country can do without the police, army, hospitals and doctors, then why should the other organs of the administration be compelled to remain locked in? Therefore, this emergency must be used for bringing about revolutionary changes.
Why should the cause list be prepared in a manner when it is almost certain that the case would not reach the Board for hearing on that day? Sometimes a case is shown to be in the cause list for days together keeping the concerned Advocates and clients on tenterhooks. This problem can certainly be solved with the help of technology and better scheduling of time. Most of the cases of the routine nature can be disposed of by the Technology itself providing much time to judges to make its better and fruitful use.
As a student of law, we were told that an advocate must follow the principle of ABC i.e. Accuracy, Brevity and Conciseness. This principle is also applicable for journalists but unfortunately, it is followed more in the breach than in the observance. Prolixity of averments in petitions, counters and judgments make them boring but again regrettably that has become the part of the habit of the lawyers and judges. The first thing that can be done by the Courts is to strictly follow the ABC.
Secondly, the lawyers should be allotted time to argue their cases with a maximum of ten to fifteen minutes to spill over the stipulated period. If it is adhered to, it will be a big time-saver. But today what we find is that some of the senior counsel are allowed to argue their cases for days together generating more fire than light. Needless, to say that if any advocate wants to read out from the case precedents, he or she should be stopped and asked to submit the list of those cases or books specifying the page numbers. Here also the Artificial Intelligence will be immensely useful.
And the third thing, which can be done is that in the cause list itself the tentative time of the cases to be taken up should be given and that will not cause unnecessary thronging of the courtrooms. If this procedure or any better method with the help of experts is adopted, it can certainly be a huge relief to the judges, advocates and litigants as well.
The Supreme Court has done well for filing of the petitions and replies on A4 size papers to be used on sides but why should it not go paperless by stopping the use of papers lock, stock and barrel?
Now coming to the Coronavirus, which has virtually compelled the courts to go for the lockdown. It is a panic reaction and it will not serve much until and unless some effective measures are adopted with the help of technology. It will give further rise to scaremongering. After all, no country can do without the police, army, hospitals and doctors, then why should the other organs of the administration be compelled to remain locked in? Therefore, this emergency must be used for bringing about revolutionary changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment