Adjourning justice is 'fine': Judiciary reacts

To curb undue delay in delivery of justice, the Union Law Ministry has proposed to impose a penalty on lower court judges who grant frequent adjournments without any justifiable reason.

Published: 08th July 2013 01:20 PM  |   Last Updated: 08th July 2013 01:20 PM   |  A+A-

Justice

Justice delayed is justice denied, goes a saying. To curb undue delay in delivery of justice, the Union Law Ministry has proposed to impose a penalty on lower court judges who grant frequent adjournments without any justifiable reason. The Ministry has also consulted the Supreme Court to take the proposal forward.

However, the proposal has expectedly kicked up a storm in judicial and legal circles. Judges feel if the penalty system is imposed it would put lower judicial officers under undue stress and make it difficult for them to apply their mind or analyse all aspects of a case.

“If this system is introduced, the judges may pass quick orders. But justice will be buried in the hurry. We strongly hope that the Supreme Court will never allow such a system,” says a serving judicial officer. He argues that speedy disposal of a case is the combined responsibility of the litigant parties, advocates, prosecution and the court. “Penalising only the judges would be highly unfair,” he says.

Retired district judge A Noor Ahmed insists that bringing such a penalty system is impossible. “A basic principle in our judiciary is that a judge is granted unfettered freedom in handling a case as per the provision of law. Seeking adjournments is a legal remedy available to a litigant and it is unfair to penalise a judge for granting a legally permitted remedy to a litigant,” he argues.

The Union Government is also seeking enforcement of the latest amendments made to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) which lays restrictions on litigants in seeking adjournments.

Judicial officers say there are enough mechanisms to ensure that judges don’t unnecessarily delay disposing of cases. “Judges also have targets – a magistrate has to dispose of 20 cases every month and examine at least 80 witnesses. A munsif judge has to dispose of 15 cases per month. Failing to meet the target for three months in a row can attract a memo from the High Court and affect promotions,” says a judge.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp