LEGAL REFORMS - Justice to Common Man denied?

When it comes to the issues of judiciary, media and even political leaders always focus on the way in which the High Courts or Supreme Court exercises their power under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India respectively. The focus comes only when there is a politically sensitive issue is involved. 

But, this argument of 'judicial activism vs. judicial restraint' was there, is there and will be there in future also. 

It is quite possible that the judges of Higher Judiciary can have some ideology or some political ideology and it may reflect in their decision making also though it is very difficult to prove the point actually. Its a highly complex subject and this issue will continue to be debated in future also.

Referring to judicial activism in political sensitive matters, leaders or people always talk about judicial appointments and now-a-days, are speaking against 'collegium system of appointments'.  I am sure that this 'collegium kind of mechanism' will be reversed in future. Its an illogical process according to me and it suits the executive or political parties the most. With this system, the criticism is that the political parties or the executive can influence the decision making without any accountability or responsibility.  There are issues with higher judiciary those needs to be addressed. 

We need not think that much about the decision making in political sensitive matters as it will not take the country anywhere.

The bigger problem for common-man is about justice delivery in routine matters like property disputes, promissory-note disputes, contract enforcement etc. These are the routine matters of common-man.  Rich or the business people can prefer arbitration mechanism or even they can ensure getting their point heard by engaging costly lawyers. But, common-man can not do this and he is confused with the costs, the delay and the procedure. These are real issues which have nothing to do with politics etc. and these issues need to be addressed with a clear vision. 

The real issues in judiciary, according to me, are about standards in law-colleges, standards in young law graduates, quality of judicial officers at lower-level, accountability in lower-courts, having a competent and full-fledged anti-corruption mechanism over-seeing the corruption issues in lower courts, transparent mechanism in filing and conduct of proceedings.  Again, our procedural law requires some drastic changes and we should completely abolish the provision of second appeal in ordinary civil cases along with many other measures. Law of evidence may also require some changes. I don’t understand as to how we can support ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ like Arbitration and at the same time, can resist simplying the procedural laws in courts.

Rich will never have a problem with our court system or may have minimal problems. But, poor people will have all the problems with our court system and if they experience our court proceedings once in their life time, then, chances are very less for them to again come to courts. This is a reality. Only because of failure of court systems, police are involved in resolution of civil disputes; and civil disputes lead to increase in goondaism as people at times prefer to get their disputes resolved through ‘panchayats’ paying some commission.

On the civil side, we should bring proper reforms or systems with planning and the purpose may not be solved solely by creating of ‘many courts’ or ‘fast track-courts’.

When will these changes come, we can’t say, but, we should bring some changes in our legal system and so that, common-man gets the much required justice.

Systems can be brought only with the effective co-operation and co-ordination among central government, state government, judiciary and legal fraternity. It’s a very complex subject and even our top-politicians-cum-lawyers must be aware of the problems though they might have been involved in their career largely with corporate or political litigation. Shri Gopal Subramaniyam has initiated right kind of measures through BCI (Bar Council of India) in order to preserve quality in legal profession. I doubt measures continuing or producing results as the system is completely rotten.

When it comes to criminal justice system, there are umpteen problems. What this system can do is that it can ensure good quality judicial officers, can ensure transparency, and can check rampant corruption at lower level especially. But, there are some problems, which are beyond anyone’s control.

It may not be entirely right to blame police though it is a fact that the shady investigations take place, and corruption is a reality.

But, in many cases, they do good job and in-fact, will file charge-sheet as early as possible and in most cases, police would file charge-sheet within 90 days.

But, police can do nothing if witness turns hostile at a later-stage and with these issues, even the water-tight-case gets weakened. But, due to these issues, criminal law principles like ‘proving the case beyond doubt’ etc. can not be changed as there is a great logic behind those settled principles.

It requires a greater understanding of the whole legal system, if we need to bring proper legal reforms and ensure affordable, hassle-free and timely justice to the common-man.

Hope one-day, the system will change and focus will be on right kind of issues.

Correcting our ‘justice delivery system’ is a huge subject and requires greater focus. But, focusing only on politically sensitive cases or sensational trials, are of no use to common-man.

Note: the views expressed are my personal, do not represent anyone or organization, no disrespect to anyone and views are expressed only in public interest.