Justice reserved is justice denied

Faster justice doesn’t merely mean putting up the evidence and arguments before court. It also includes handing out judgment within reasonable time. Since there’s no proper explanation of ‘reasonable time’, the judiciary can’t be blamed for reserving verdicts for a long time. This is the tragedy and the irony of the justice delivery system.

When lawmakers, judges and bureaucrats discuss how to reduce pendency and bring in transparency in the justice system, they hardly ever talk about how certain courts take more time than necessary to deliver judgments in big-impact cases.

Around 22 months ago, a bench headed by CJI Balakrishnan reserved a judgment on whether narco tests could be used as evidence. The judgment continues to elude law enforcement agencies and petitioners who appealed to the court because they thought they would get quick results on a major issue.

In such cases, court could abide by the guidelines from a bench of Justices KT Thomas and RP Sethi to subordinate courts in 2001. They were dealing with an appeal on whether the direction issued by Patna high court to the state’s subordinate judiciary in 1961 applied to the court itself. HC was anguished at a magistrate who had taken 9 months to give judgment. 

The petitioners were aggrieved by the delay even though the accused had been in jail for two years waiting to know the fate of their appeals. Wouldn’t HC’s directions to the subordinate judiciary in 2001 apply to it too? It must apply to HC too, it was contended. The issue raised was of utmost importance and Thomas-Sethi bench said, “If the subordinate judiciary delayed in giving judgments, the HC could chide them or take action.”

The judges had another remedy too. If a judgment isn’t given within three months, any of the parties is permitted to move HC’s chief justice for early dispensation. If there’s no judgment within six months, any of the parties can withdraw the case and to take it to another bench.

It’s up to the CJ to take an appropriate decision.