This article is written by Archak Das, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
Any democracy’s judicial system is its foundation. It is the system that guarantees that everyone is treated equally and justly, regardless of their social station. The judiciary is responsible for upholding the law, thus it must function with honesty, impartiality, and independence. However, the legitimacy of the entire system can be damaged by the prevalence of nepotism and the Uncle Sam Syndrome in the judiciary.
It is true that having a family history in law does not ensure success in the legal profession. Success in the legal field depends on a number of variables, including educational background, legal expertise, and experience, among others.
To succeed in the legal profession, one must put in a lot of effort and be persistent. These attributes are not necessarily implied by a person’s simple family background.
The issue, however, has less to do with legal achievement and more to do with who gets appointed to important posts in the judiciary. Judges and other important posts in the judiciary have to be appointed on the basis of merit, not kinship relationships. It can have terrible effects to appoint someone who are under qualified and under experienced to fill these posts.
The society it represents must be reflected in the legal system. It must promote inclusion and diversity in hiring practices, paying special attention to ensuring that overlooked and marginalized groups are represented. As a result, the judiciary will be better able to uphold the ideals of fairness and equity and will be more representative of the community that it serves.
INTRODUCTION
India’s legal system is prompt, accommodating, and kind. Despite how odd it may sound, this insight is unquestionably true. The only issue is that not everyone benefits from the system, especially those who are economic, social, or political disadvantageous.
The British system, wherein litigants are represented by attorneys, has been adopted in India. The extent to which these attorneys can sway the outcome of the lawsuit in their clients’ favor varies. The senior advocates or defense councils, who are considered celebrities in the legal community, have a significant impact on how courts respond to plaintiffs. “It is widely acknowledged that the hearing patterns in most courts change whenever petitions of wealthy and powerful individuals come up,” says a lawyer activist who has been fighting for quick justice for the poor. Senior advocates who represent them are given extra consideration.[1]
These sought-after advocates, of course, come at a steep cost that is clearly out of reach for even the most impoverished citizens. The top 10 attorneys in Delhi charge between INR 5 lakh and INR 25 lakh for each hearing before the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, as shown below. It should be emphasized that there are other costs associated with getting justice than the advocate’s fee. In addition to significant indirect costs, there are many more direct costs involved. In such a situation, the cost of obtaining justice becomes crucial, and the likelihood that justice would be served quickly is directly correlated with the ability to pay that cost.[2]
On the other side, the likelihood of receiving justice is reduced when this expense cannot be covered; for the most fortunate, justice may ultimately be served, but it will still be too late.
It won’t be entirely accurate to presume that the legal system has no interest in correcting the aforementioned disparity. Several steps have been taken in this direction, including providing free legal assistance. The State has a responsibility to ensure that the legal system advances justice based on equal chances for all of its residents. It must thus make arrangements to offer no-cost representation to persons who are unable to access the court system owing to financial or other barriers.
FAULTY LINES IN INDIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
Encounters with the criminal justice system bring the sovereign power of the Indian State into sharp relief. In general, the police have a significant influence on how criminal laws are enforced. In the era of colonial India, the government’s extensive police powers came under harsh criticism and mockery because it seemed like there was no oversight, accountability, or way to seek remedy. It is interesting to note that nationalists who vehemently opposed police authority were eager to keep them in the post-colonial country and swiftly opened the way for its quick expansion.
No one will contest the relevance of the criminal justice system to society, regardless of their opinions on it. Men rely only on this law to safeguard them from all serious harm that other people’s actions can do to other people or to institutions. The strongest power that we allowed government entities to use against people is governed by penal law. Only its capacity for destruction rivals its promise as a tool for safety. There is no area of law where the community or the individual have more at stake.
The ‘license-raj’[3] in the initial years of independence was characterized by the introduction of numerous regulations to stifle economic wrongdoing. These were the many laws that state governments made to put the prohibitionist directive into practice. Additionally, numerous economic regulations were introduced to strengthen the commodity control that already existed. The majority of these laws were passed as “special” legislations that didn’t follow standard criminal law. The requirement for warrants was eliminated, and getting bail was made exceptionally challenging. Unquestionably, the state of colonial rule and the early choices made in India after colonialism left its mark on the criminal law interpretation that exists now.
The range and depth of police authority have not changed, but they have been appropriately altered to address the more complex offences of the twenty-first century. The advent of the Letter Rogatory system, which promises mutual legal aid between governments in cases of crimes committed across international borders, is a commendable move in this regard.
When considering criminal justice reform, there are usually two sides to the story. On the contrary, the state will need to make sure that the police and related magistrates’ authority is not diminished because this would make it harder for them to uphold the law.
On the other hand, there is a need to safeguard the public from the misuse of police authority, as evidenced by numerous cases of incarceration mistreatment and extrajudicial killings. The courts of the nation have a significant duty at the intersection of these two paradigms.
Chief Justices of India have repeatedly issued warnings about the cracks in the country’s criminal justice system at periodic chief justices conferences. The vast number of criminal cases pending and the excessive delay in concluding criminal cases, on the one hand, and the extremely low conviction rate in cases including serious crimes, on the other, are well known as the two main issues plaguing the criminal justice system.[4]
This has made crime more likely. These days, organized and violent crime is the norm. White-collar crime is now a lucrative industry. People now live in perpetual terror as life has become hazardous. The state of law and order has deteriorated, and the public has less faith in the judiciary as a whole.
The two issues concerning the judiciary, a large backlog of cases and a low conviction rate directly affect the system of criminal justice. The main area that requires attention to improve the situation is the provision of a sufficient amount of Judges skilled in handling various types of criminal cases. The numbers show that the Judge strength is woefully inadequate at every level. Following a review of the matter, the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to gradually increase the number of judges from the current 10.5 or thirteen judges per million individuals to fifty judges per million individuals within a five-year period.
Article 21 of the Constitution contains a right to a speedy trial for the person being tried, which must be scrupulously upheld. A major rethinking of the necessity of some offences that were codified over 200 years ago is also necessary because they are no longer justified in the perspective of 21st-century morality. In this regard, the crime of sedition could be brought up because it is open to broad definitions and conflicts awkwardly with the right to free speech guaranteed by the constitution. Sedition in this sense looks to almost be a “thought-crime” that could be used to exact political vengeance because any encouragement to violence that is overtly discernible may be punishable and restrained through numerous other offences.
Similar to criminal defamation, research indicate that convictions are extremely rare; yet, the mere filing of a Complaint for defamation can have negative consequences for the accused. In a same vein, the usage of the capital punishment needs to be soberly reexamined. It has been stated time and time again that the justification for continuing to use a cruel form of punishment from the 15th century does not achieve any exclusive deterrent effect, particularly in light of the Bachchan Singh decision by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench.[5]
Each of the aforementioned factors needs to be thoroughly examined, soberly assessed, and strong reforms must be implemented. Before they yawn open to reveal the utter failure of the criminal justice system in India, it is anticipated that the recently established committee for reform of the criminal justice system established by the Union Government may address these fault lines.[6]
WHEN JUSTUCE IS DELAYED, INJUSTICE IS SERVED
It indicates that if a person that has been harmed has access to legal or equitable remedies but it is delayed, it is functionally identical if they have no relief at all.
Due to the injustice for the wounded party who suffered the injury and had little chance for a swift and efficient remedy and resolution, this principle serves as the foundation for a right to a fast trial along with other rights that are aimed to accelerate the judicial system. Legal reformers who believe that tribunals, courts, judges, arbitrators, administrative justice judges, commissions or governments move too slowly to resolve legal matters, whether because the case is too difficult,
Hidden factors that affect speedy delivery of justice
Corruption in Indian Judiciary
One of the potential causes of the legal system’s delay is its corruption. The dishonest judges may purposefully withhold their verdict or give the party they support unjust adjournments. The judgment may be supported by personal bias or belief. The Indian legal system is likened to a cobweb where little insects become captured and are destroyed by larger ones.
Nirmal Yadav, a retired high court judge, was found guilty of accepting Rs. 15 lakh from businessman Ravinder Singh of Delhi in 2008. On August 13, 2008, this money was accidentally delivered for the first time to Justice Nirmal Yadav’s Chandigarh residence (who was then a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court).
Man power
The number of judges currently available is quite low when taking into account the country’s population and the number of cases that are pending. The huge population of the country cannot be handled by the available amount of judges. Thus there is a potential delay in justice.
Provisions for adjournment
The court’s arbitrary decision to adjourn cases on tenuous grounds is the primary cause of the delays in these instances. Adjournments and the court’s ability to postpone the hearing are covered under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Rule 1, Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).[7]
Breaks in courts
There is disagreement about why courts should have a break when there are a lot of cases pending in a country like India. The majority of countries lack this clause, including France and the United States. However in country like India where is already a huge population and large number of open cases, it wouldn’t be wise to have a provision for breaks of the court in order to prevent the delay in justice.
CONCLUSION
Since the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional principle and not just a myth, it must be upheld. It is currently being regarded as a way to lessen the growing judicial burdens by both the law and the courts. Due to the significance of a prompt trial, this Sixth Amendment guarantee is both a vital component of the Bill of Rights and a vital component of our legal tradition has on both the accused and society at large. The criminal justice system’s ongoing delays and continuations prohibit victims from ever finding financial, physical, or emotional relief from the pain they endured as a consequence of the crimes committed against them. Thus in order to promote the delivery of proper justice, the problem of delay in delivery of justice should be prevented. In the end of the day, justice delayed in when injustice is served.
REFERRENCES
1. https://aishwaryasandeep.in/constitutional-right-to-speedy-trial-4/
3. https://thedailyguardian.com/fault-lines-in-the-indian-criminal-justice-system/
5. https://www.cbgaindia.org/blog/4186/
[1] https://www.cbgaindia.org/blog/4186/
[2] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/10/15/justice-delivery-some-challenges-and-solutions/
[3] https://thedailyguardian.com/fault-lines-in-the-indian-criminal-justice-system/
[4] https://blog.forumias.com/answered-what-are-various-reasons-for-poor-state-of-legal-justice-in-india-give-some-solutions-to-make-justice-system-more-efficient
[5] https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10725-the-role-of-dignity-in-the-pursuit-of-justice.html
[6] https://thedailyguardian.com/fault-lines-in-the-indian-criminal-justice-system/
[7] https://aishwaryasandeep.in/constitutional-right-to-speedy-trial-4/
0 Comments