Verdict reserved: Delaying orders makes judiciary’s name ugly

It is presumed in all fairness to litigants and the dispensation system that courts, including high courts and the Supreme Court, are governed by the principle of fairness and rule law.

The undue delay in the completion of a trial is seen as unfair and against the rule of law. Delay in disposal of a case, if not explained satisfactorily, is detested.

At a time when serious concerns have been expressed to mitigate the trauma being caused to innocent consumer of justice due to the cumbersome procedural wrangling, it becomes pertinent to point out that huge backlog of cases isn’t always due to the varied tactics adopted by the parties in a trial or a civil suit.

A lawsuit can’t be said to have been disposed unless the court that examined it has delivered the verdict on the dispute and that too within a “reasonable” time.

Over a decade ago, the Supreme Court observed that “a long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculation in the minds of parties to a case”.

The problem of excessive time taken by the courts to arrive at a decision on the disputes put forth before them by the litigating parties isn’t new.

A government set up Arrears Committee that examined the recommendations of the Chief Justices’ conference in 1989 strongly suggested that reserved judgments should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks (one and half month) from the conclusion of the arguments.

On the other hand, the Criminal Procedure Code states that the judgment in every trial shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the completion of proceedings in every trial.

Does it happen in practice? The answer is in the negative.

While instructions have been issued for the subordinate courts to abide by the strict time frame in passing judgments or orders, little can be done for the HC and SC judges because of the silence of the Constitution on this aspect.

This issue had been considered by the top court in 2001 and it passed a slew of directions which are applicable to the HCs alone.

The principle specified by the SC for expeditious judgment can’t be denied to the top judiciary. The term speedy justice doesn’t differentiate between different legal forums set up under a law or the Constitution.

In the famous Anil Rai case in 2001, a bench of justices KT Thomas and RP Sethi examined the ill effects of delay in delivering a judgment and opined that early judgment enforces people’s faith in the dispensation system.

They said delay in disposal of cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.

“For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly,” they said but their words seem to have been forgotten with the passage of time.