Time to put justice on fast track

If the government has survived the attack on the validity of its decision to wrap up the fast track courts, it may be because the Supreme Court is over-conscious of its power to upset a policy that had been put in place to fulfill the constitutional mandate to provide for speedy dispensation of justice to the citizens.

That nothing stops a constitutional court from declaring withdrawal of a policy as against the cannons of justice and fair play is a matter of fact. The facts examined by it in a recent case alone were good enough to meet the requirements of striking down the renewed policy decision regarding stopping of finance for the additional speedy courts.

In recent times, executive and political governances have been making loud noises against the top court’s intervention in matters related to government policies and also striking it down as being against public interest.

In fact, the concept of public interest litigation (PIL) started by the Preamble-loving judiciary in early 80s is an example of the vibrant judicial pronouncements for the betterment of the large section of the society that, however, continue to suffer due to the executive inertia. The effect is significant: certain cherished goals enunciated in the Directive Principle of State Policy which can’t be subjected to judicial mandamus have been slowly carved out of the Preamble and placed in the statutes.

Though the government enjoys the authority to not only frame its policies but also to change them, sometimes, it can’t resort to arbitrariness and unreasonableness as that could surely invite judicial review.

It’s surprising that the apex court has restrained itself from overturning the UPA government’s policy decision to shut fast track courts. Though expeditious and cheap, justice is not only a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution but also a salutary mandate for political governance.

It has been held that justice must be within easy reach of the lowest of the lowliest. ``Rancour of injustice hurts an individual leading to bitterness, resentment and frustration and rapid evaporation of the faith in the institution of judiciary. Two vital limbs of justice system are that Justice must be within the easy reach of the weaker sections of the society and that it must be attainable within a reasonably short-time, in other words, speedily’’, these were the words of a constitution bench that dealt with the controversy over paucity of judges and their appointments.

The ground reality is worse than before. By September, 2010, about 2.8 crore cases were pending in subordinate courts and 42 lakh in high courts.  Approximately 9% of these cases have been pending for over 10 years and a further 24% cases have been pending for more than 5 years.

In fact, pendency has increased by 148% in the Supreme Court, 53% in high courts and 36% in subordinate courts in the last 10 years, a study said. These figures, however, don’t distinguish between fresh cases and those which have been admitted for hearing.

The tardy pace of the criminal dispensation system has overstuffed the Indian jails by 127%.  Isn’t time to save the system from derailment?