Suggestion for reducing pendency of cases

All of us are aware of the saying “Delayed Justice is Justice denied”. With this post I am suggesting a few measures for reducing the pendency of cases in various Indian courts, given my personal experience of being engaged in legal litigation for last 16-17 years.

We approach the court to resolve disputes between two parties. In majority of cases one of the parties is right while other party is wrong. It it my personal experience that, the advocate of the party on the weak wicket, files the written statement in the court with distorted and fallacious facts, on the pretext that those were presented accordingly by the client. though they are aware of the truth.

Advocates of the party on the weak wicket tries to play games for lingering the proceedings by taking unnecessary adjournments. As a result, we get dates after dates from the court i.e. “Tareekh pe Tareekh”.

Those who have seen the movie “Jolly LLB”, would remember the incidence when a senior advocate makes a remark that the other advocate will not contest the case properly if he just calls him once. Given my personal experience that remark was based on reality. Senior advocates can influence other advocates for not contesting or arguing the case in right spirit and weakens the case of the genuine party. As a result, the Judge doesn't not come to know the real picture of the case. From the movie “Jolly LLB”, we might also remember the remarks of the Judge that he keeps on waiting for the evidences to surface during the course of the case which never happens and he is unable decide the case judicially. In my opinion, that also was based on reality.

In our Judicial system, there is hardly any punishment for lying under oath. Also it cannot easily be proven in courts because, ultimately the case is to be contested by an advocate and no advocate would like to pursue a case against another advocate.

If above mentioned facts are correct, I have following suggestions to be made to hasten the Judicial process in Indian courts and reducing pendency of cases:

1. A maximum limit of taking adjournments in the court by each party should be fixed. The number could be higher in the lower (Magistrate) courts and reducing while moving to higher courts with no adjournment allowed in Supreme Court. It would reduce the number of “Ineffective” dates and Advocates would be forced to move at a faster pace in the courts.
2. A punishment should be fixed for the parties found to be presenting distorted or fallacious facts in the court.
3. A punishment should be fixed for every Advocate which is found to be filing, presenting and/or contesting distorted or fallacious facts in the court, because advocate may change in course of the case. It should not only be monitory alone because advocates may charge that money from the client in turn and will remain unaffected. Initially the punishment could be monitory alone but in ascending order and afterwards, the punishment should be in other form such as suspending the license of the advocate for a certain period and increasing the duration after every next detected offence. If such a measure is taken, Advocates will hesitate in presenting distorted or fallacious facts in the court and I believe, will reduce at least 50% of the cases from even reaching the court.
4. In that eventuality, only the truth would be presented to the Judge which will facilitate judges to decide cases faster and flawlessly.

To implement such measures, not only the willingness is required but also the message should reach authorities appropriate for implementing such measures. more