a1nyayashakti
Post on 14-Jul-2015
3.143 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CITIZENS’ APPEAL: ENSURING EXPEDITIOUS AND
TIMELY JUSTICE TO ALL
TEAM: A1 NYAYA SHAKTI
Animesh Kumar, Dev Diwakar Patel, Dharmendra Panwar, Harshit Chandra and Madan Singh (Students, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar)
ENSURING ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Lack of Infrastructure
and Manpower
Unregulated Adjournment
s
Attitude of Lawyers and work culture in
Courts
Endless Amendmen
t of Laws
Issuance of Summons
FACTS AND FIGURES REASONS FOR BACKLOG
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, MANPOWER AND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ARE MAJOR SOURCE FOR INCREASE IN THE
BACKLOG OF CASES IN INDIA
Facts and Figures
Judicial system has been granted fund of o.4% of the India’s GDP
and 13th Finance Commission has allocated Rs. 5,000 Crore for
improvement in judicial delivery system
Ratio of Judges per million people (In 1999 Law Commission India
in 120th Report) - 11 judges (Supreme Court instructed to increase
ration to 50 judges within 5 years in 2002)
The present position – 16 judges per million people in India
(Source: MCMS)
Increase predicted:
- 75,000 judges
- 37,000 judges and ratio from 16 to 30 judges per million people
(in next 3 years)
- Number of Courts to be increased from 14,000 to 18,847
Judicial Development and Recognition
Hussainara Khatoon v State of
Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81
Right to Speedy Trial is implicit
in Art 21 of the Constitution of
India
Hussainara Khatoon (II) V Home
Secretary, (1980) 1 SCC 91.
the Court emphasized expeditious
review for withdrawal of cases
against under trails held for more
than two years.
Hussainara
Khatoon (III) v
Home
Secretary,
(1980) 1 SCC
93
Protective
custody was held
to be a blatant
violation of art. 21
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
Secretary, (1980)1 SCC 98
The Court emphasized the right
as an essential ingredient of art.
21, which could not be denied on
the ground of financial or
administrative inability of the
state.
Hussainara Khatoon (V) v.
Home Secretary, (1980) 1 SCC
108
It was held that those changed
with multiple offences and
already imprisoned for period
longer than the total maximum
period, if the sentences were to
run consecutively, were also
held entitled to be released.
Nimeon Sangma v. Home Secretary, Govt. Of
Meghalaya, (1980) 1 SCC 700
The expeditious trial and the investigation
were reemphasized by Justice Krishna lyer
Kadra Pahadiya (I) v. State
of Bihar,
The Court complained that
right to speedy trial had
remained a paper promise
Kadra Pahhdiya (II) v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1982 SC 1167
Supreme Court has the power to give
necessary directions to the state
Government and appropriate
authorities for securing this right to
the accused.
Sheela Barse v. UOI, (1986) 3SCC
632.
The effect of the violation of the
right to speedy trial was that the
prosecution itself was liable to be
quashed
S.C. Advocates on Record
Association v. UOI , AIR 1994 SC
268
The Court pointed out that it
may issue direction to assess the
felt need and fix the strength of
judges according to the need.
Santosh Dev. Archana
Guha, AIR 1994 SC 1229
The Court asserted its
power to quash
proceedings for denial of
the right.
S Rama Krishna v S Rami Reddy,
AIR 2008 SC 2066
The Supreme Court has reiterated
that the speedy trial is a
fundamental right of an accused.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND THESTANCE OF THE LAW
COMMISSION
The concept of speedy justice is sine quo non of criminal
jurisprudence. It saves a person from evil consequences of
incarceration. In past, a number of Committees have been set
up to achieve the target of speedy justice.
As back as 1924, Rankin Committee 1924 was
set up on delay in civil cases in High Courts and
subordinate Courts. In 1949, a High Court
Arrears Committee under the chairmanship
of Justice S.R. Das was appointed.
In 1969 Hidayatullah, CJ, presided over
a committee to look into the problem
of arrears in all its aspects. Later on,
Justice Shah was appointed the
Chairman of the Committee. The
Committee was known as High Courts
Arrears Committee, 1972.
Some states also set up committees to look into the problem.
For example, the W.B. Committee, 1949 under the
Chairmanship of Sir J. Harris then Chief Justice of the
Calcutta High Court and the Uttar Pradesh Committee, 1950
under the Chairmanship of Justice Wanchoo
LCI REPORT RECOMMENDATION
19th Law Commission Report It proposed the creation of additional courts and benches to expedite justice
58th Law Commission Report The Commission took note of imperative need to reduce load in the higher
Courts.
77th Law Commission Report Long delay in the disposal of cases has resulted in huge arrears and a heavy
backlog of pending file in various courts in the country. No reform may prove
useful if the existing courts remained burdened with heavy backlog of
pending cases.
79th Law Commission Report The Commission concluded that search for solution is to be regarded as
quest and periodical redefinition of methods is necessary. It further
emphasised the need for speedy implementation of many reports dealing
with the problem of delay and heavy backlog of arrears
120th Law Commission Report Backlogging is a product of Inadequate judge-population ratio and lack of
infrastructure. Manpower Planning in Judiciary in which it compared
India’s judge-population ratio vis-à-vis developed countries and found that
the ratio in India is 10.5 judges per million people (lowest in the world) as
compared to 41.6 per million people in Australia, 75.2 per million people in
Canada, 50.9 per million people in United Kingdom and 107 per million
people in United States of America. The Central (Government) has failed in
its objective to extend the judge strength to 107 judges per million people
by the year 2000 as recommended by the Law Commission of India.
Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association & ors. V. Union of
India & Ors. has observed that judge strength should be increased by 10
per million people every year for 5 years to meet at least the desired ratio of
50 to a million people.
221st Law Commission Report
230th Law Commission Report
The Commission suggested that Section 80 and Order V of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 should be amended. It also suggested for the
amendment of Section 378, 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
The Government of India should direct the state authorities to set up Fast
Track Courts in the country, which alone can solve the perennial problem
of the pendency of cases.
Section 260 The offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years are
triable summarily.
Section 173
Report of the police officer on completion of the investigation
Section 309
Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings
Section 157 of Cr.P.C
Procedure of Investigation
Section 167 of Cr.P.C
Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours
Section 468
Section 468Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 AND SPEEDY TRIAL
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEUDRE, 1908 AND SPEEDY TRIAL
SECTION 89 AMENDMENTS BROUGHT BY
1976 AMENDMENT ACT
Recommendation of 13th Finance
Commission, Grant Guidelines,
2011
I. Establishing ADR centers training of mediators/conciliators
II. Establishment of Lok Adalats
III. Training of Judicial Officers
IV. Training of Public Prosecutors
V. Legal Aid
VI. Creation of post of Court Managers
VII. Enactment of National Litigation Policy by the Central Government
Recommendations Legislative amendments suggested:
India, there must be a ‘The Speedy Trial Act’ like in United States Of
America
Incorporating the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ in Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973
Amendment of Section 80 and Order V of CPC
To follow the guideline regardign the time in delivery of judgment provided
by Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC
318
The number of adjournments that is to be allowed should be fixed by law
for all kinds of cases.
Infrastructural Recommendations:
Introduction of the Information Technology in the Judicial Proceedings
Audio recording of the Judicial Proceedings should be allowed instead of
court reporters/stenos.
Video conferencing should be allowed in the judicial proceedings in the
matter of the production of the under trials.
Computerization of the documents.
Recommendation for Present Judicial System
Appointment of adequate number of judges or increase in the number of judges in lower and higher judiciary
Establishment of Fast Track Courts at the Magisterial Level
Establishment of the Evening Courts and Mobile Courts
Mechanism for enforcement of any Time Limit for the Delivery of Judgment
Establishment of Specialized Benches
Strengthening the Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism by increasing awareness about it
The number of Public Prosecutors should be adequate and only competent and qualified persons should be appointed as the PPs.
References
Policy and action plan released by National Court Management System, 2012
Colin Gonsalves, When India had 1,500 Fast Track Courts, the Hindu, 11 January
2013
Minsitry of Justice, Department of Justice (website: http://doj.gov.in)
Blue Print for Reducing the Backlog of Cases in the Subordinate Courts of the
State of Gujarat, Research Report, Gujarat National Law University, March 2010.
Reports of the Law Commission of India
Improving Justice Delivery, Ready Reckoner on Thirteenth Finance Commission
Grant, Government Orders and Guidelines Issued by the Government of India,
Government of India, May 2011
Ahmad Siddique, Criminology, Problems and Perspective, 4th Edn., 1997
D.P Sharma, Speedy Justice & Indian Criminal Justice System, XLV(1999) IJPA 365.
top related