CJI SH Kapadia today virtually attacked the government for withdrawing the consultation process in the appointment of public prosecutors who play a key role in the criminal justice delivery system.
Chief justice of Indian SH Kapadia today virtually attacked the government for withdrawing the consultation process in the appointment of public prosecutors who play a key role in the criminal justice delivery system.
Justice Kapadia who shared concern on the issue of administration of criminal justice system said judicial reforms can take place only if it is coupled with reforms in the legislations and Bar.
Quoting Section 24 of the CrPC, the CJI said the provision mandated the government to consult the high court and the
Sessions Court for appointment of public prosecutors, but over
the years the process has been given a go bye.
"We should make use of modern technology. We need to amend the rules and bring about these changes, because I personally
believe please do not rely or attack only us for judicial reforms. We need the Bar reforms. We equally need legislative reforms.
"Of course, I would like to ask one question why under Section 24 of CrPC that earlier public prosecutors were appointed in consultation with high courts? Why all public prosecutors were very good? Why we do not have those type of public prosecutors today? Why is the power taken away?" he posed.
The chief justice made the observations in his presidential address at the All India Seminar on Judicial Reforms, which was inaugurated by the president Pratibha Patil.
He appealed to senior advocates to come forward and contribute for reforms in the judiciary and complained that this was not taking place in India as has been the practice in European countries.
The CJI also said a special team of statistical officers would be involved in segregating cases on three fronts by classifying them as "sticky cases", "subverted cases" and "process problem."
Elaborating, he said that sticky case are those which consume considerable time, while subverted cases would be identified as those in which the one of the parties try to delay and in the last category the delay occurs due processing of service like the notice and summons, which account for 50% of the problem.
The CJI said the rise in the pendency and arrears was due to the lack of settlement culture in the country.
"We do not have settlement culture. We do not have specialists. You may have hundred mediators," but they lack adequate specialised knowledge to tackle disputes in the alternative disputes redressal fora, he said.
Justice Kapadia said there has been high GDP in the country, but the gap between the rich and poor have also increased.
"We have to take steps to bring down the gap," he said.
On the arrears and pendency of cases, he said it has to be understood in a true sense as the current figure of three crore cases in various courts cannot be considered as arrears.
Maintaining that 62% of the cases are only year old, he said there is a "vast difference between arrears and pendency."
The CJI, who referred to the statistics till December 2009, said the pendency of high courts is not over 45 lakh cases as reported, but only 22.75 lakh.
Similarly in the district courts, he said that against the stated figure of three crore cases, the actual number of arrears was only 1.03 crore.
Even in the Supreme Court the calculation has not been done properly, he added.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}