Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Only more courts can make justice delivery effective: CJI

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • A day after Union Law Minister M Verrappa Moily unveiled a Vision Document to improve the justice delivery system, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan on Sunday said the only solution was to set up more courts in the country. He was speaking at the concluding session of the National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary Towards Reducing Pendency and Delays here, also attended by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, where Moily presented him a copy of the draft resolution.

    The CJI, in his response to the draft resolutions prepared after two days of deliberations between the executive and high court and Supeme Court judges, had only this to say: “We can’t have effective judicial system unless there are more courts.” Pointing out that at present about 15,000 district-level judges and about 700 HC judges were neeeded, the CJI called upon the government to set up more courts, which would drastically cut down the backlog of cases.

    Ads by Google

    Later, Moily told mediapersons that the CJI’s request for more courts would be definitely attended to.

    Explaining why judges adjourn matters, Justice Balakrishnan said every judge knew that on average, he had more than 35-40 cases to deal with on any given day. “Judges are under tremendous pressure, so whenever a request comes seeking an adjournment, the judge grants it.”

    “Unless the number of courts is increased, arrears cannot be handled and justice can’t be effective,” the CJI said, adding that though family courts were established in 1984 several districts still didn’t have one. Highlighting the lack of designated CBI courts to deal with corruption matters, he concluded: “If we have adequate courts, the system would function smoothly.”

    ... contd.

    Next12
    And this moving from lower to upper courts ...By: Manoj | 26-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward I dont understand why a judgement when delivered in lower courts can be challenged in higher courts without any accountability. If the judgement remains same, the punishment needs to be doubled. If its reversed, the lower court judge must loose his job.
    delay in justiceBy: VictimOfJustice | 26-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward There is no need for more judges. If there is accountability of judges and some monitoring of undue adjournments given, I am sure no of judges can be reduced. In a criminal revision, the section 403 CrPC stipulates that parties do no have right to be heard. Still petitioner is given 7 adjournments as 'his advocate is busy with other courts'. Petitioner(Accused) simply wants to delay the trial. Already, the trial court took 5 years to take cognisance. Does it not amount to patronising the criminals? How more judges will solve this problem? One of the imp witness has already expired. Complainant is a senior citizen. Prosecution does not work. Complainant is there for whole day and then adjournment given on frivoulous ground.
    Supreme Court to be blamedBy: R.Ramachandran | 26-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward There is an urgent need to increase the number of judges at all levels. Simultaneously the infrastructure in the courts at all level has to be improved.The levels of appeals should be reduced. For instance, it is only on the basis of the pecuniary jurisdiction the Civil cases either go to the District Courts or the High Courts. This being so, when a lower court decides a matter, the next appeal should be to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. However the appeals in criminal cases can from from lower court to High Court and then to the SC. Supreme Court also should not take up the cases out of turn. For instance, while there are scores of cases pending before it, what is the need for taking up the RIL-RNRL gas case on priority? Why should a case where a politician is involved should be taken up on priority?
    NOT BY INCREASE IN NUMBER OFJUDGES ALONE. OVERHAUL IS NEEDED.By: SANTOKH SINGH SAHI | 26-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward AS EXPECTED CJI HAS AGAIN ASKED FOR MORE JUDGES. JUDGE IS JUST A PART OF JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. EACH COURT APART FROM INFRASTRUCTURE, NEEDS 5/6 STAFF MEMBERS.NO GOVERNMENT CAN AFFORD TOO MUCH FINANCIAL BURDEN. WE NEED TO AMEND S.80 CPC FOR DIRECT NEGOTIATION FOR ONE YEAR IN ALL CASES.PLEA BARGAIN BE SIMPLEFIED. LET LAWYERS NURSE THE CONCEIVED CASE TO MAKE DELIVERY RIPE BY THE JUDGE.OVER 90 % CASES CAN BE DISPOSED OFF BY LAWYERS IN THEIR CHAMBERS. JUDGE ONLY NEED TO CONCENTRATE 100 % IN DECIDING CONTROVERTIAL ISSUES. MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS BE ENTRUSTED TO PARA LEGAL STAFF. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILTY BE GIVEN TO ADMINISTRATOR. TEMPORARY JUDGES/PROSCUTORS BE HIRED FROM THE LAWYERS AT EACH PLACE OF WORKING COURT, AS AND WHEN NEEDED. LAWYER-JUDGE WILL COST MUCH LESS. PRIVATISE PROCESS SERVICE WORK,COURT SECURITY,RECORD KEEPING,COPYING,AND SECTARIAL WORK. OPEN PRIVATE BAIL BOND AGENCIES,ABSCOUNDER APPREHENSION AGENCIES,REFORMATION AND REHABILITAION CENTERS. JUDICIARY BE MADE TRANSPARENT
    Adopt non-violent constitutions, instead !By: CK Raju Thrissur | 26-Oct-2009 Reply | Forward Negative, CJI. Where is the proof that a larger number of courts would lead to fewer number of litigations ? There are large number of countries in the world from where answer can be picked up. A blind hypothesis would lead quite to the contrary. Injustice results when a system is ignorant of its potential to be interpreted differently. There is a visible absence of ethics and philosophy in public educational institutions. Ethics could have led to a fewer number of interpretations in the absence of any. It could well be the unjust way of having constituted ourselves that could be leading to this mal-interpretations - a rectification which needs to be begin with the constitution itself. A simple suggestion would be to look into the constitutions of those countries which have fewer litigations and which are more democratic - both - and adopt its secular (non-religious) version. A violent social heritage like ours, perhaps, may be making us blind. Before you do it, ensure Z category !!
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.