Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The prime minister has been unusually outspoken in his criticism of delays in the judicial system and rightly so. Justice is jammed in the works. A monstrous number of cases is pending in courts around the country. One calculation is that if no new cases are admitted it would take about 350 years merely to clear the backlog. It is high time the consequences for society were recognised. The system has broken down for millions of ordinary people who have to wait sometimes as long as 20 years for a verdict. Nor are the demands of a growing and increasingly complex economy served well.
Things have got to such a pass that criminals manage to manipulate the system to their advantage and the dishonest see the courts as allies. So the prime minister should be forgiven for choosing the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Supreme Court to say delays in the judicial system “justly invite contempt and derision”. As harsh as that sounds it is, sadly, true. People from all walks of life are bound to lose respect fora justice system that does not work for them. One has only to go to the corridors of any court in the country to get confirmation.
Shock tactics are necessary in this cynical age but everything the prime minister said could end up as mere denigration of the system unless constructive efforts are made to mend the system. This must involve the judiciary and political executive working in tandem to reform it. But that can hardly happen if egos and turf battles get in the way. The remedies are well known: many more suitable judges will have to be found and appointed at all levels; salaries and perks especially of the subordinate judiciary should be substantially upgraded; new rules and guidelines should be drawn up to deter government departments from overloading the courts with minor problems or because bureaucrats want to avoid taking decisions.
The new Union Law Minister has promised action on all these fronts and it is time to go ahead. So why is the government talking about setting up a judicial reformscommission at this stage. A commission would be useful for overhauling procedures and evolving new dispute resolution mechanisms (arbitration, plea bargaining, out-of-court settlement procedures). However, it seems the Centre is determined to impose a code of conduct on the judiciary and the JRC may serve that purpose. This is quite inexplicable and confrontationist when a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court has already drawn up a detailed code of conduct for the judiciary. If for any reason Ram Jethmalani has reservations about that code, surely it should be discussed in a cooperative spirit and solutions found. What is holding up new judicial appointments to fill the huge number of vacancies in courts?
To set up a JRC (a five to ten year process) to settle these issues suggests the judiciary and the political executive still do not see eye to eye on the basic remedies. Gridlock threatens all over again. That must not be allowed to happen. Having said what was necessary Atal Behari Vajpayee shouldensure his government plays a constructive role in the judicial reform process.
