Is justice bound by time? Does justice lose its value over time? Would a delayed judgment make any remarkable change in the life of the victim? What about the accused who has been in jail (innocent until proven guilty)? Should a case be dragged on for so long that even a generation is too short to get any type of justice? What are the possible solutions to this issue, or should I ask, "Is there any solution to it?"
The pendency of cases is touching new highs year on year. Approximately 3 crore cases are pending in various courts across India, with more than 60,000 matters before the Supreme Court. As mentioned by India’s Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud, more cases show trust in our judicial system, however, the problem, is not too many cases coming into the system; it is off too few coming out. For example, it took about 7 years for the final judgment to be made in the Jessica Lal murder case and about 8 years in the Nirbhaya case. This raises the question of whether it should take almost a decade to deliver justice. The Supreme Court's data on the national picture of the pendency of cases in subordinate courts shows that these delays are burdensome to the system and frustrating to the average citizen's hope for effective resolution. While subordinate courts are generally able to handle the influx of new cases, they fall short when it comes to reducing the backlog of cases.
The situation of remand prisoners across the world is quite concerning. According to statistics, there are nearly 3 million remand prisoners globally, accounting for 27 percent of the total prison population. However, India faces a much worse situation. As per the latest 'Prison Statistics India - 2015' report, released by the National Crime Record Bureau, 67.2 percent of the total prison population in India comprises under-trial prisoners. This means that 2 out of every 3 prisoners in India is an under trial prisoner, which implies a person who has been accused or charged with committing an offense but has not been convicted and is still presumed innocent.
The Indian justice system has faced criticism for keeping men in jail for years without a trial. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in the Kadra Pehadiya vs. the State of Bihar case, expressed his concern over the matter and said that it is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system. The court also observed that no one should be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period, and the maximum period for a session trial should not exceed one year. However, it is disheartening to see that the justice system has become so dehumanized that lawyers and judges do not feel a sense of revolt at caging people in jail for years without trial. Justice Krishna Iyer, while dealing with the bail petition in Babu Singh v. State of UP, remarked that our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from a slow-motion syndrome that is lethal to fair trial, whatever the ultimate decision may be.
The Indian judiciary is known to be slow in its proceedings, which is a cause of concern for many. One of the primary reasons behind this lethargic behaviour of the courts is the inadequate budget allocation they receive. In the ninth plan, the allocation made to the judiciary was a mere 0.0711 percent, which is a paltry sum compared to the total outlay of Rs. 600000 crores. This amount is not even 0.1 percent of the total plan outlay.
The situation did not improve much in the tenth plan, either. Out of an allocation of Rs. 800000 crores, the amount set aside for the judiciary was a meagre 0.078 percent. This allocation is less than one-tenth of the total outlay, which is less than 1,000 crores for the next years. In 2019, India spent only 0.08% of its GDP on the judiciary, which is not a significant amount compared to the country's other expenses. All states and union territories allocated less than 1% of their annual budget to the judiciary, except for Delhi, which set aside 1.9%. The Indian judiciary's budget allocation has been a matter of concern for many years, with the allocation remaining less than 1% of the total outlay. This has resulted in the judiciary's slow proceedings, impacting the justice delivery system.
It is clear from the preceding content that the Indian Judiciary is struggling to speed up the process of dealing with cases. However, this raises a question: is fast judgment always favourable? While speedy judgment is certainly desirable, it should not come at the cost of neglecting due process and giving careless judgments. Justice AD Jagadish Chandra's bench has stated that "hasty justice is not a preferred alternative to delayed justice... due care needs to be exercised to prevent undue speed or haste in the matter of disposal because it would result in unfair play." In other words, justice that is rushed can lead to injustice. It is important to prioritize promptness in delivering justice, but not at the expense of fairness and due diligence. Justice hurried is justice buried.
The problems in the judiciary system have been a topic of discussion for quite some time now. It is apparent that several issues need to be addressed, and if we talk about the problems, we must also explore some solutions to resolve them. One of the primary solutions is to increase the number of judges in the system to handle the rising number of cases. Reducing judicial vacancies can also help to streamline the process and ensure faster delivery of justice. Another effective way is to divert cases from the courts to alternate dispute resolution forums like mediation and Lok Adalats, leading to a reduction in the burden of courts and faster resolution of disputes. Specialized tribunals can also be set up to deal with specific types of cases and ensure speedy justice. In the criminal justice system, the introduction of "fast-track" courts, jail-adalats ("prison courts"), and plea-bargaining can help to expedite the trial process, but their success is yet to be demonstrated. However, even if these methods succeed in reducing the pendency of cases, we must not lose sight of the quality of substantive justice rendered. Other solutions that can be considered include the requirement of an independent investigative agency and giving fixed time for the representation of written statements, counterclaims, and replies like the plaint, under the Limitation Act. Concepts such as Public interest litigation are always welcomed, which is affordable to the common man. To answer the question asked in the beginning, ‘Is there any solution?’, there are several solutions to the problems faced by the judiciary. However, the major question that arises is when the legislature/judiciary will implement them. Many more solutions are suggested in various reports of endless lists of committees, but the critical question we need to ask is why these solutions have not been implemented yet and when will they be implemented.
The Indian judiciary faces several challenges, including backlogs, infinite adjournments, and a lack of judges. Despite these difficulties, the judiciary's untiring efforts to impart justice have created faith in the rule of law, which is a great achievement deserving of deep appreciation. Unfortunately, these issues have been around for years, and their solutions have been neglected for far too long. In conclusion, a slow justice system can be hazardous for society, whether it concerns criminal or civil matters. As noted in the 239th Report of the Law Commission of India, delays in the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases erode faith in the rule of law and the criminal justice system, which has serious implications for the legitimacy of the judiciary. Therefore, justice delayed is justice denied.
Credits - Vishnu Manoj Nair
