Decision should be taken soon after hearing in court

The great jurist Nani Palkhiwala had said that even snails should feel ashamed after seeing the slow pace of justice in India. In a case in one state, the magistrate had delayed giving the verdict for nine months after the hearing was over. The High Court of that state, in its 1961 decision, had expressed serious concern over the conduct and judicial qualifications of the magistrate. After that the situation has become worse. According to the latest data, there are 5.07 crore cases pending in the country, out of which 4.44 crore cases are pending in the district courts. There are many reasons for late decisions in cases. If justice is delayed, not only the people but also the country suffers loss. In some cases, after the hearing, the judge reserves the decision and issues the written decision later. In one such case, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chandrachud has expressed his displeasure over the High Court’s decision to hold a fresh hearing instead of giving a reserved verdict 10 months after the hearing ended.

He has said that doing so is wrong and unjust. In such cases, it is difficult for judges to remember the points of old debate, which can lead to delay in the trial and wrong decision. Before that, on the occasion of the 75th Foundation Day of the Supreme Court, he had expressed concern over the delay in hearings and decisions due to long arguments by lawyers. In India, long debates and big decisions have become a bad habit in matters related to VIPs and Constitution benches. But the general public has to bear the brunt of this luxury litigation. According to a report last year, the oldest civil case is going on in the Calcutta High Court since 1951, while the oldest criminal case is awaiting decision since 1969.

In the case of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Antulay, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had said that the right to speedy justice is also included under the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the year 2000, the Madras High Court’s late decision in the Bhagwandas case was declared a judicial offense by the Supreme Court. In that case, the High Court gave its verdict in 1994, five years after the hearing was completed in 1989. In view of such increasing cases, the Supreme Court had issued guidelines in 2001 in the Anil Rai case of Bihar. According to him, if the decision is not received within two months, the Chief Justice of the High Court should warn the judges at the administrative level. If there is a delay of more than three months in issuing the decision, the concerned parties can file an application for early decision. If there is a delay of more than six months, the parties can demand hearing of the case before a new judge.

But those instructions are not being completely followed in the High Court. In the case of Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal, the High Court judge has said that there cannot be a distinction between mass i.e. public and class i.e. VIP cases. But the reality is different. According to the Constitution, it is wrong and illegal to keep people in detention unnecessarily for more than 48 hours. But bail cases are not listed in Allahabad High Court for many years, Chief Justice Chandrachud has expressed concern over this plight many times. The cases of the general public are not heard quickly and in many cases, despite the court’s decision, the poor are not even released from prison. On the other hand, in the NDPS case, the judges of Bombay High Court issued a written decision three weeks after immediately releasing Shahrukh Khan’s son Aryan on bail.

The Supreme Court had said in October 2023 that six percent of the population in the country is suffering from litigation. Justice Ravindra Bhatt’s bench had issued guidelines for speedy disposal of cases. There were guidelines in it to all the courts at the district and taluka level to pay attention to the time limit of summons, file written statement, complete the arguments and give the decision quickly. According to the judges, delay in justice reduces people’s confidence in the courts.

The judges of the constitutional courts of the High Court and the Supreme Court have been given the status of God. Therefore, no provisions were made in the Constitution and law regarding the period for issuing their decisions. Under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the time limit for the decision after hearing in civil cases in the district courts has been fixed at one month. District courts work under the High Court, but High Court judges are not subordinate to the Supreme Court. But in view of the increasing number of delays in decisions, the instructions issued by the Supreme Court through judicial decisions are binding on all judges across the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. But it is unfortunate that these instructions are not followed in the Supreme Court itself. According to a report of 2015, out of 487 decisions of the Supreme Court, in 38 percent of the cases the written decision came after a month. The judges gave a written verdict after 20 months of hearing in the Naz Foundation case related to homosexuality. Before that, in the 2G scam, the written verdict in the case of the then Telecom Minister A Raja had come after 433 days.

Instead of debating on some issues, it is necessary to fix the entire system. As per the guidelines, details of all cases reserved in the High Court and Supreme Court should be released on the website. Following the rules will increase accountability of judges for speedy justice along with transparency. The government has made new laws for quick decision of criminal cases, the implementation of which will start after three months from July. To reduce the burden of cases, a committee of Chief Justices of three High Courts had given a report in 1989. According to him, the decision should be issued within six weeks of the hearing. After the formation of the new government, if clear nationwide laws are made for these matters under judicial reforms, then the general public will get quick justice and the courts will be relieved from the heavy burden of cases.
(These are the personal views of the author.)