The introduction of the Goa Evening Court Rules, 2014, exhibits complete lack of sensitivity and non-application of mind by the authorities to the feasibility of the rules and the ground reality existing in Goa.
The cornerstone behind the rules is the huge pendency of cases in Courts. However, the statistics reveal only a modest backlog.. It is unlike the State of Gujarat, which first implemented the rules, when its backlog was 45 lakh cases. The sanctioned strength of 6 Judges and 15 Magistrates in the South Goa District, operating during normal court hours, is more than sufficient to dispose the existing backlog, without the need for evening courts.
It cannot be said that the regular incidence of vacancies in judicial posts in South Goa, arising out of routine transfers and elevations of judges, and the accompanying perceptible lethargy in filling up of these vacancies has played a generous role in creating the backlog of cases. At present there are three posts empty in the Civil and Criminal Courts in Margao and one in the District Court in South Goa, which are yet to be occupied. It is pertinent to note that the notification applicable to the State of Maharashtra confers jurisdiction on evening courts only in complaints for dishonour of cheques, cases summarily triable and cases transferred with consent of the parties., However, the notification pertaining to Goa is vague and omnibus, and does not make any such specification, thereby creating a ring of suspense around the actual operation of the Rules.
The rules also discriminate against women who are expected to balance their personal life with their professional life. When will there be the time for family? Further, working late in the evening in the Court could give rise to several potential dangers, such as stalking, accosting, sexual attacks, etc. Do the authorities expect lady advocates to stop practice and return their brief, whenever such cases are transferred to the evening courts?
TThe working of evening courts could also ruin the quality of justice dispensed to litigants. If lawyers are expected to work from 10.00 am to 7.00 pm, when will they get the time for effective and wholesome consultation, and other ancillary work of drafting, etc. The notification conveys the impression that advocates who hesitate to appear in evening courts should return their brief? Won’t it tantamount to injustice to the litigant who desires that a particular lawyer appears for him, and the lawyer is unable to do so, due to transfer of the matter to the evening courts, where he is unable to appear? Wouldn’t then the whole exercise be counter productive? We need to ensure not only the quantity of justice dispensed, but also the quality of justice.
