(1) Searching for case law relating to any case is much easier nowadays since most of case law is available on the web sites of High Court and Supreme Court and resort to Google-search, besides CDs available at affordable cost. The brain work involved on the part of both Judges and lawyers is much less now than in the past.
(2) The stereotyped reply that one hears about excessively long time for settlement of legal proceedings is that the ratio of Judges to population is too low, being much less in India than in many other countries, particularly advanced countries. But very few in the judicial fraternity seem to have assessed whether the procedures processes as in vogue are all justified and unavoidable in all cases. For example do Judges have the power to decline requests of lawyers of adjournment on grounds which are not substantive, material and weighty? What about adjournments ordered by Judges on their own without any ground being mentioned? Is application of mind by a Registrar not sufficient and is application of mind by a Judge essential after a hearing by him in all cases for permitting issue of Summons? Where Service of Summons could not materialise owing to the addressee of Summons not being available at the Address known to and furnished by a plaintiff/petitioner,can substituted service by publication in a local newspaper not be ordered as a matter of routine without a special petition being filed on behalf of the plaintiff?
(3) Technology is very much advanced compared to what w as available when the procedures being followed even now were devised. Several gadgets and facilities are available like video-conferencing, audio-conferencing, emailing, internet, searching through google, Ask-me etc., verifying ownership of properties through search in computerised record of rights (as in what is referred to as 'CARD' in Hyderabad), Judgements of Courts posted in the web sites of courts which can be readily extracted by any internet user without a copy certified by a judicial authority being required. more
(2) The stereotyped reply that one hears about excessively long time for settlement of legal proceedings is that the ratio of Judges to population is too low, being much less in India than in many other countries, particularly advanced countries. But very few in the judicial fraternity seem to have assessed whether the procedures processes as in vogue are all justified and unavoidable in all cases. For example do Judges have the power to decline requests of lawyers of adjournment on grounds which are not substantive, material and weighty? What about adjournments ordered by Judges on their own without any ground being mentioned? Is application of mind by a Registrar not sufficient and is application of mind by a Judge essential after a hearing by him in all cases for permitting issue of Summons? Where Service of Summons could not materialise owing to the addressee of Summons not being available at the Address known to and furnished by a plaintiff/petitioner,can substituted service by publication in a local newspaper not be ordered as a matter of routine without a special petition being filed on behalf of the plaintiff?
(3) Technology is very much advanced compared to what w as available when the procedures being followed even now were devised. Several gadgets and facilities are available like video-conferencing, audio-conferencing, emailing, internet, searching through google, Ask-me etc., verifying ownership of properties through search in computerised record of rights (as in what is referred to as 'CARD' in Hyderabad), Judgements of Courts posted in the web sites of courts which can be readily extracted by any internet user without a copy certified by a judicial authority being required. more
Viewed by 458
View all 10 comments Below 10 comments
Attendance of Litigants: There exists a system where attendance sheet is signed by the advocate and litigants present in person. However this process is not followed in majority of the courts and the Judge/ Reader arbitrarily records attendance. At times making wrong records and even declaring litigants present as absent. Some times declaring litigants as Ex-Parte without any order to that effect. The culture is of a Kangaroo Court more
Feb 05
Judgement/ Orders on Court website: There exists a system where the Judgement or Daily Orders are uploaded on Courts Website, but this is not religiously followed specially by the Registrar at High Courts and at District Court level. This adds to the inconvenience/ harassment of the litigant who has to visit the court to do file inspection or apply for certified copy. more
Feb 05
Apart from the inadequate infrastructure of Judiciary, i.e. no. of courts, no. of judges etc. the most annoying cause of increasing the pend ency is to seek date after after date by the accused advocate until the case warrants fast track judgments due to national or political issues. The next date is given left and right on the frivolous grounds. This not only delays the justice but the legal cost for the petitioner keeps on mounting. I wish to suggest that the curt should not allow more than two dates and any further extension should be based on depositing the advocate fee of the petitioner with the court could prove a great deterrent for keep on asking for dates after dates. more
Feb 05
Application IT in administration of courts needs to be increased. Alternative Dispute Resolution methods like Arbitration and mediation needs to be employed in resolving disputes rather than increasing litigation. more
Feb 05
