It is rightly said that Justice delayed is Justice denied. Justice need not, on the other hand hurried and thereby buried. Procedures and processes can be rationalised, simplified and speeded up. Latest technology including audio recording, photocopying, video recording, online filing of petitions, FIRs, plaints, Defendant’s Statement, even self-certified documents etc. may be allowed as a matter of normal course and not by way of exception. Permission/order for issue of Summons may be issued by the Registrar and may not require a hearing by a Judge. Adjournment may not be allowed except on very weighty and substantive grounds, and that too not more than once and for not more than one week. Substituted service of Summons may be allowed to be issued as a matter of normal course if normal service has not proved to be possible. Time-norms may be prescribed for each of the stages: say, 10 days for service of Summons, 10 days for filing of counter-affidavit of the Defendant, 10 days for submission of evidence, one week for Arguments, 10 days for issue of Judgement along with which , order of Execution may be issued and the complete set of the various processes may be completed within three months.

It is rightly said that Justice delayed is Justice denied. Justice need not, on the other hand hurried and thereby buried. Procedures and processes can be rationalised, simplified and speeded up. Latest technology including audio recording, photocopying, video recording, online filing of petitions, FIRs, plaints, Defendant’s Statement, even self-certified documents etc. may be allowed as a matter of normal course and not by way of exception. Permission/order for issue of Summons may be issued by the Registrar and may not require a hearing by a Judge. Adjournment may not be allowed except on very weighty and substantive grounds, and that too not more than once and for not more than one week. Substituted service of Summons may be allowed to be issued as a matter of normal course if normal service has not proved to be possible. Time-norms may be prescribed for each of the stages: say, 10 days for service of Summons, 10 days for filing of counter-affidavit of the Defendant, 10 days for submission of evidence, one week for Arguments, 10 days for issue of Judgement along with which , order of Execution may be issued and the complete set of the various processes may be completed within three months. more

Helpful Legal Advise and Matters Oct 02

Viewed by 435

View all 24 comments Below 24 comments

Mirle Subbarao

good ideas from mr vemury. some legal pundits can compile all the ideas and send a white paper thro change.org to Chief justice of supreme court. there is absolutely no doubt that sensible pragmatic changes should be made to avoid delaying tactics by lawyers. culture of adjournments at the slightest pretext should change. modern technology has to be used to track the disposal of cases, monitor judges performance. path breaking steps have to be taken. one hopes a chief justice will come up who can address these problems and push the reforms. more

Nov 22

Kinkar Kumar De

Stage monitoring for each step is required for quick disposal. Present practice is not conducive. Long dates and subsequent adjourments make the life of a judgement seeker hell. It high time to put strict discipline in place. But who will implement? more

Nov 22

Kameswara Rao Kolluri

HERE JUSTICE IS DELAYED BY THE ADVOCATES TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PETITIONERS. THIS SHOULD BE AVOIDED. more

Oct 07

Udai Shanker

इसका निर्णय कौन करेगा की होने वाली देरी reasonable है या नहीं ? माफ करिएगा पर इन तर्कों ने ही भ्रस्टाचार को पैदा किया और बढ़ाया क्यूंकी यही तर्क देकर पैसे वसूली शुरू होती है की फाइल जल्दी पाहुचनी है तो पैसे लगेंगे । न्याय की आश मे गया व्यक्ति तारीखों के बीच झूलता रहता है और वकील हर तारीख पर पैसे लेता रहता है , जज का पेशकार तारीख देने के लिए पैसा लेता रहता है - इन सब पर बंदिश क्यूँ नहीं - क्यूँ नहीं तव किया जाता है एक अवधि - एक टार्गेट । कोई भी कारी ऐसा नहीं होता है जिसे समकी सीमा मे नहीं बांधा जा सके और न्यायपालिका मे लंबित मुकदमे मे हो रही देरी हो नहीं की जा रही है और वह भी सोची समझी नीति के साथ - REASONABLE शब्द सिर्फ अपनी कमियों को छिपाने का प्रयाश है more

Oct 07

S Narayanan

Reasonable delays arising out of justifiable causes cannot be questioned.
But, I think, here we are talking about other delays.

One is the delaying of justice to facilitate burial of evidence and
justice; and the other is the burying of evidence and justice in the
process of hurrying up - both are the banes of justice delivery system and
frustrates the very purpose of the existence of the system.

It has become a practice among litigants to approach the Higher Courts
under various pretexts while the matter is in the advanced or final stages
in the Trial Court to divert the course and prolong the pronouncement of
judgement. In the matter of the *Uber Cabbie r*ape case, the counsel for
the accused wanted to re-examine the witness when the matter was
progressing towards pronouncement of judgement. He approached both the
Honâble High Court and the Supreme Court which turned down his plea. The
counsel was changed midstream and the new counsel bought time to study the
case. Yet, his arguments in the trial court seem to be proceeding on the
same or similar grounds now.

The appellate courts normally do not interfere with the finding of facts
given by trial courts, unless some reason based on facts is traceable on
record. In heinous crimes, it should be made stricter and frivolous pleas
should not be even entertained.

S. Narayanan

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:59 PM, M S APPALA REDDY MADDI <
support@localcirclesmail.com> wrote:

> more

Oct 07

View 24 more comment(s)