Chander Gupta
My younger brother is a practising lawyer in a High Court. He is reasonably successful in his profession. We live in the same city, separately in our own houses.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
During the rendezvous at his place on intermittent evenings for a drink, he treats me to courtroom trivia. While glancing at his cause list during our conversations, my brother often exclaims that more than a dozen cases are listed for hearing for the next day.
Initially I presumed that he had a sizeable number of briefs, so much so that on most of the working days, he had more than a dozen cases listed where he had to appear for his clients. Gradually I learnt that only a couple of these were actually heard, though more than a dozen cases were listed.
The turn of majority of the listed cases does not come up by the end of day. They are rolled over for a latter period. As
the disposal rate is much slower, the number of pending briefs with lawyers keeps piling up.
An interesting fact that he shared with me was that the appointments of High Court judges were done in the ratio of 75:25.
The 75% of the bench strength of a High Court consists of direct appointees from the Bar, whereas only 25% are picked up from amongst trial court judges. In other words, only 25% of those elevated to High Court are career judges and 75% are directly elevated from the Bar. The earlier ratio of 60:40 was more reasonable.
One reform that is desirable is that the elevation to the High Courts should be in the ratio of 50:50.
What is more significant is that members of the Bar are elevated to the same High Court they have been practising in. Therefore, there should be more of inter-HC transfers. In the subordinate courts, judges are posted at a centre for not more than three years at a stretch.
The subordinate judges are transferred every three years. Likewise, High Court judges should also be transferred every 5-7 years. The vacancies in the High Courts
as per the sanctioned strength should also be filled up.
The real battle in the High Courts is fought for interim relief: ‘bail’ and ‘stay’.
In criminal cases, ‘bail’ is the immediate goal for both accused and his lawyer. As trials are unduly prolonged, the relief of ‘bail’ is much sought after. The ‘bail’ is so much rejoiced upon as if it is acquittal. In civil cases, the petitioner looks for stay/ injunction. I have scarcely heard about final adjudication from my brother’s lips, it is mostly about interim relief provided through bails and stays.
The issue of timely delivery of justice and judicial reforms is never an agenda item in the manifestos of political parties at the time of elections. The pendency of cases
in the courts is burgeoning. As the age-long adage goes, “Justice delayed is justice
denied”.
Why are the vacancies not filled up in the High Courts? The number of judges and physical infrastructure is inadequate in the districts. Is justice not an important enough matter for the nation to be worthy of a poll issue? Ignoring the cause of justice is an injustice.
