By DR. JUSTICE G.C. BHARUKA

In India, judicial delays are more in the nature of a human problem than merely “a system’s deficiency” as understood in other legal systems of the world. Here, litigation makes the life miserable whatever be the nature of dispute. The problem of judicial delay has assumed the role of a challenge to the right to life, liberty, livelihood and property. Judicial dealys have acquired a gigantic proportion. Arrears are mounting. Delays in disposal of cases, particularly in subordinate courts and some of the High Courts, have resulted in acute frustration, insurmountable mental tortures for the litigants and in many cases, are responsible for bringing miseries to their families. Quite often it becomes multi-generational. Litigations ruin the families. The problem of delays and arrears has so far been viewed as a problem concerning the judiciary or the state courts. It has not been viewed from a human angle. It is high time that the policy makers and administrators of justice view the problem as a gross violation of one of the basic human rights. Justice Krishna Iyer has described the judicial process in India as a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’. It is authoritatively claimed by high-ups in the judiciary that judicial proceedings are conducted in the open gaze of the public and therefore, the entire process is completely transparent. On the other hand, there is a popular demand for transparency and accountability in the system.

It is true that under the Indian judicial system, the entire adjudicatory process is conducted in the open court. Any member of the public can witness the proceedings even if he is not a party to the dispute. Therefore, apparently, there is a complete transparency. But what becomes mind boggling for a common man is why the cases are not disposed of within reasonable time frame. The mystery lies in the fact as to why a case is adjourned hundreds of times over years even without advancing the case towards successive adjudicatory stages. Who is accountable for it? Are the trial courts answerable to any one for this mechanical and insensitive act bringing miseries to the poor litigants and the witnesses? Are the supervising authorities not answerable to the public for the failure to discharge their constitutional duties? But to support all these failures, the public must have handy access to case data, which remains in case files and are not readily available to the public. This creates the mystery for the common man. The underlying mystery for a litigant is the lack of information pertaining to his case. The use of information and communication technology in judicial process has completely demystified it. The ostensible lost case date is now readily available to the litigants, lawyers and people at the helm of the affairs. It is no more a mystery. The date available eloquently tells that the delays and arrears have occasioned because of failure of the personnel manning the judiciary at every level. It clearly fixes the accountability. It makes the system incorruptible. I, as a student and then as a lawyer, could never understand as to why the courts have not been able to withstand the need of speedy justice. I also wondered about the reasons of the failure of the policy makers to resolve the problem. I used to be at a loss as to where the mystery lies. Over the years, I developed an in-depth inquisitiveness to know as to where and in whose hands lies the key to the so-called mysteries of the judicial process. But as a lawyer neither I had the time to understand nor had access to the inhouse working of the judicial system. It was these long years of desire and motivation which, immediately after my elevation as a Judge of the Patna High Court in June 1990, prompted me to initiate my work on finding the reasons for the delay and working out a pragmatic solution. The court management was quite poor at the time I joined the Bench. The Court was facing unprecedented and unanswerable problem of arrears. The High Court Registry was finding itself completely helpless.

In August, 1990, I suggested the then Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Mr. G.G. Sohni, to opt for computerization in the field of court management. I realized that information technology and computers can provide an answer to predicament. NIC came forward to assist in software development. By June 1991, machines were purchased and the process of court computerization proceeded in full scale. As the work progressed, the journey started achieving new milestones. By March, 1992, all new cases were instituted, processed and listed in daily cause list for motion and admissions through the computer details as to daily progression of cases, adjournments and cases classified on the basis of year, subject and judge were available.

Meanwhile, in order to automate the registry level functioning at the Supreme Court of India, certain initiatives were taken and after the success at the Patna High Court, I was called upon by the then Chief Justice of India to participate in a meeting to be held on 25-1-1993 to discuss about the listing of matters in various courts through Computer Automation Program. Pursuant to the discussions in the meeting and detailed study of the working system in the Supreme Court, I submitted a ‘Report relating to Complete Automation of Court Management in Supreme Court of India’ to the Chief Justice on 28-1-1993.

Published Year: 2003 Format: n/a ISBN: INJS1 Publisher: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur No of Pages: 300 Our Price: India. Rs. 495.00 Reviews: 0 reivew(s).

Add to Wish List Tell a Friend Write a Review