Chief justice of India-led bench flouts supreme court law on delays

A bench headed by no less a person than the chief justice of India (CJI) appears to be setting a bad example on judicial delays. A three-judge bench headed by chief justice KG Balakrishnan is about to create a record of sorts by not delivering judgment for nearly two years in a case involving the legality of narco tests.

On January 25, 2008, the bench, comprising the CJI, and justices RV Raveendran and JM Panchal, concluded hearings on a batch of petitions questioning the methods adopted by the police in conducting narco analysis, brain mapping and lie-detector tests on the accused against their will. The petition also called for the framing of guidelines in this regard.

The court’s verdict, whenever it comes, will be critical for all kinds of terror investigations since narco tests have come to be used regularly in such cases, including the recent Malegaon blasts case involving Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. Narco tests were also extensively used in the Telgi stamp paper case. During his interrogation under narco testing, Abdul Karim Telgi is understood to have named several ministers in Maharashtra and Delhi.

If the brain mapping and narco tests are accepted in law and their results admissible as evidence, there’s a strong possibility that politicians will use these results to score political points against their rivals.

Given the importance of this judgment, it is inexplicable why the CJI-led bench is sitting on it when the highest court has already laid down clear principles in the Anil Rai case to prevent delays in judgments. On August 6, 2001, a bench of justices KT Thomas and RP Sethi had issued detailed guidelines for high courts and subordinate courts asking them to pronounce verdicts within reasonable time.

That directive said that if benches failed to give a verdict within six weeks, the matter could be reheard by another bench. Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case may file an application in the same high court seeking an early judgment. Such an application would be listed before the bench concerned within two days.

If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the litigating parties would be entitled to seek withdrawal of the case and its hearing by any other bench. It would be open to the concerned CJ to allow the prayer.

Interestingly, a sitting supreme court judge, justice AK Ganguly, said in a recent article on “Judicial reforms” published in Halsbury’s Law Monthly (November, 2008), that judges must deliver judgments within a reasonable time. He also said that the guidelines given by the apex court in the Anil Rai case must be scrupulously observed, both in civil and criminal cases.

Considering the staggering backlog of cases in courts, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10 to 15 days and court working hours should be extended by at least half-an hour.

The then chairman of the Law Commission, AR Lakshmanan, had on August 5 written to law minister M Veerappa Moily calling on judges to deliver their verdicts within reasonable time. The centre’s committee on arrears has recommended that a reserved judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within a period of six weeks of reserving it by a court.

The Law Commission has said: “It is high time all the judges at different levels of the judicial hierarchy must devote full time to judicial work and should not be under any misconception that they are lords or above the society. Though this feeling should come from within, some guidelines are necessary’’.