Delays in disposal of criminal cases are ugly pox marks on our justice system. It is a fact that we require five times the number of judges we have today, something to which governments have habitually turned a deaf ear. Avoidable delays have to be eliminated, as punishment loses its deterrent potential if it does not swiftly follow the offence. But even here the solution is not to impose arbitrary limits of a few weeks or months as is being directed by the Supreme Court to Karnataka High Court to hear and dispose of the appeal of Jayalalitha challenging the verdict of the special court in Bangalore in the Disproportionate Assets case against her and others. True, justice delayed is justice denied; but equally justice hurried is justice buried.
That it will take more than 300 years to clear the backlog of cases in Indian courts is proof enough that our criminal justice system is sick, stagnant and in urgent need of a complete overhaul.
However, we should not resort in extra-ordinary hurry-up of cases by whatever means. As justice delayed is justice denied, similarly, the saying, justice hurried is justice buried is equally true. Therefore, sufficient, reasonable and due hearing of every case with consideration of its circumstances is the necessary requirement of natural justice and balance of convenience. In fact, the untiring efforts put by fear and flavorless Indian Judiciary is doing commendable job of imparting justice in spite of so many difficulties, which created faith of public in the rule of law is a great achievement, which really requires deep appreciation.
The judiciary is part of our democracy and all its implications must be imported into the judicial process. Once we accept the proposition that in a democratic society the court system plays a crucial role in seeing that neither licence nor absolutism becomes dominant, the difficult tasks of the court vividly stare us in the face. As Chief Justice Burger has noted: “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law - in the larger sense - cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets”.
Paving the way for an unusually speedy hearing of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s appeal on her conviction in the disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court asked the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice on December 18 to constitute a Special Bench to hear the case “exclusively” on a day-to-day basis and complete it in three months.
The apex court extended the bail of Jayalalitha and the three other accused in the case — V.K. Sasikala, J. Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran — till April 18, 2015.
Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu requested the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court to constitute a Special Bench, “keeping in view the peculiar circumstances” of the case, to hear exclusively the four criminal appeals in the assets case on a day-to-day basis, complete the proceedings and pronounce the judgment in three months from Dec 18.
The time frame was set after Jayalalitha’s counsel Tulsi said he would require at least 30 working days to complete his arguments. The three months’ time was fixed on the consideration that the High Court might require at least a month after the arguments conclude to deliver the judgment.
Chief Justice Dattu orally observed that in case the appeal proceedings were not completed in three months, the apex court could be duly informed and an extension of 15 days considered.
This order of the Supreme Court fixing time frame for the completion and pronouncement of the judgment by the Karnataka High Court in the appeal of Jayalalitha and others has surprised many in judicial circles as no such order seemed to have been issued earlier in the history of Indian judiciary. There is also precedence of the apex court rejecting such pleas of Jayalalitha for speedy hearing of her appeals against the verdicts of lower courts. As she was convicted and sentenced for three years imprisonment in TANSI land case, she could not contest in the 2001 Assembly elections. However, without being elected to the Assembly, she managed to get sworn-in as Chief Minister and if she had to continue in the post she had to get elected to the Assembly before November 13, 2001. To felicitate it she filed petitions twice in the Supreme Court on September 7 and 14 that year pleading for direction to the Madras High Court for speedy hearing and disposal of her appeals against the judgment in TANSI case. But the apex court bench headed by Justice S.P.Bharucha rejected the plea of Jayalalitha, who was racing against the November 13 deadline to get elected to the Assembly, for an early hearing of her appeals pertaining to the TANSI land scam case by the Madras High Court. A three-judge bench comprising Justices S P Bharucha, Brijesh Kumar and Ashok Bhan dismissed her application seeking modification of the September 7 order of the apex court transferring the appeals to a new judge in the High Court to start hearing them afresh not before October 1. “Raising the plea same plea for the second time is not on,” the bench said, dismissing the application through which she had sought advancement of the hearing date from October 1 to September 25. Her appeals against the conviction in the two TANSI cases and a case pertaining to Pleasant Stay Hotel were pending in the High Court then.
Similarly, the Supreme Court on August 1 this year said that it cannot fast-track criminal cases against MPs alone, taking them to be a distinct category from other pending criminal cases.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked MPs to get the pending criminal cases expedited in a bid to reduce criminality in politics. The Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice R.M.Lodha said there are several categories like women and senior citizens where criminal trial needs to be expedited. The apex court said this fast-tracking of a few categories is not helping to speed up criminal justice system as the manpower in trial courts and infrastructure is woefully inadequate. The Supreme Court asked the Modi government to come out with concrete proposal within four weeks, in consultation with States, on how to fast-track entire criminal justice system and not appointing a few special courts for some sensitive cases.
The Supreme Court said good governance means expeditious criminal justice delivery system. “Pendency of criminal cases for 10 years does not augur well for democracy,” the the bench said.
Declaring that there should be no space for criminals in Parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on June 11 sought the support of lawmakers to ask Supreme Court to complete trials of pending cases against MPs within a year. Narendra Modi, who had spoken of fast-tracking pending criminal cases against MPs during his campaign, said such an initiative will help punish the guilty and remove the taint from those MPs who are falsely charged. The PM said pending FIRs were like a sword hanging over lawmakers who suffered embarrassment “whenever one NGO or another publicizes the cases against them”. He linked his advocacy for MPs collectively opting for swift trials to his larger theme of restoration of people’s faith and redemption of India’s reputation.
In such circumstances, the biggest question that had crept in the minds of people is why such a special privilege is being extended to Jayalalitha alone. It may be because of the good intention that corruption case should be expeditiously heard and disposed of. But this case is absolutely undeserving even for showing this good intention. It was Jayalalitha who prolonged the trial of the case that should have been completed at the most in one year for more than 17 years by seeking nearly 185 adjournments, going on appeals after appeals to higher courts on flimsy grounds only to be rejected with stern warnings several times by the higher judiciary. From the judge of the trial court to the judges of the Supreme Court were irritated by the attitude of Jayalalitha in facing the case straight forward. When such an incorrigible and incongruous person is seeking speedy hearing of her appeal for her selfish interests, what is the need for accepting the plea, is the question in the minds of law abiding people.
The very objective of the electoral law disqualifying persons convicted in corruption cases from contesting in elections for six years after the end the period of sentence is to keep them out of any position in power only to make them repent and resent their misdeeds. The biggest punishment for such recalcitrant person with all possibilities for ruling the State, is her inability to use them and remaining shut at her residence due to her conviction in corruption case. She is undergoing this punishment by being removed from the post of Chief Minister though her party won in the elections. Though people who had committed various offences were acquitted in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove their crimes, the trials and tribulations undergone by them during the trial period and during appeals amounted to moral punishment. But should Jayalalitha, who “made a mockery of judicial process”, according to the observation of a judge of the Supreme Court, be spared of even this moral punishment?
According to recent reports there were more than 3.15 crore case including 64,919 cases in the Supreme Court were pending in courts all over the country. Even in such issues like Cauvery waters issue involving the life and livelihood of crores of people solution could not be found even after 40 years of litigation. Lakhs of innocent people were still undergoing imprisonment as under-trial convicts for periods more than the periods of sentence if the offences, they are accused of, were proved and convicted. In such circumstances people are unable to comprehend the fortune that will befall the country by the speedy hearing and disposal of the appeal of Jayalalitha alone!
The question of why the apex court, which did not direct the trial of the disproportionate assets case in the special court now hurrying up the appeal, has also crept in the minds of people. It is not known as to why the apex court did not take into account the axiom ‘Justice hurried is Justice buried’ just as ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’! Moreover, the directive that the appeal should be heard in two months and judgment delivered in the next one month is seen by the legal fraternity as exerting a sort of pressure on the judges of the Karnataka High Court who are to hear the appeal of Jayalalitha & co., particularly when the judges had to scrutinize and cross check with arguments of the two sides over 2.30 lakh pages of evidence submitted by them. Moreover, it is said that keeping the bail petition of Jayalalitha pending without disposal would also impact the hearing.
Former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, convicted in teachers’ appointment scandal case, was given bail only after 123 days. So also former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad, convicted in fodder scam case, was released on bail only after 75 days. No step was taken to speedy hearing of their appeals against trial court verdicts. Not only that, Om Prakash Chautala was arrested and lodged in prison for having violated bail condition. But, for Jayalalitha, who scantly disregarded judiciary repeatedly, was given bail without any condition. If she was given bail in consideration of her health condition or any other consideration, under what consideration others Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran were given bail and opportunities are given for their appeals to be heard speedily? All these raise the question in the minds of common man whether all are equal before law?
That it will take more than 300 years to clear the backlog of cases in Indian courts is proof enough that our criminal justice system is sick, stagnant and in urgent need of a complete overhaul.
However, we should not resort in extra-ordinary hurry-up of cases by whatever means. As justice delayed is justice denied, similarly, the saying, justice hurried is justice buried is equally true. Therefore, sufficient, reasonable and due hearing of every case with consideration of its circumstances is the necessary requirement of natural justice and balance of convenience. In fact, the untiring efforts put by fear and flavorless Indian Judiciary is doing commendable job of imparting justice in spite of so many difficulties, which created faith of public in the rule of law is a great achievement, which really requires deep appreciation.
The judiciary is part of our democracy and all its implications must be imported into the judicial process. Once we accept the proposition that in a democratic society the court system plays a crucial role in seeing that neither licence nor absolutism becomes dominant, the difficult tasks of the court vividly stare us in the face. As Chief Justice Burger has noted: “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law - in the larger sense - cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets”.
Paving the way for an unusually speedy hearing of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s appeal on her conviction in the disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court asked the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice on December 18 to constitute a Special Bench to hear the case “exclusively” on a day-to-day basis and complete it in three months.
The apex court extended the bail of Jayalalitha and the three other accused in the case — V.K. Sasikala, J. Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran — till April 18, 2015.
Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu requested the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court to constitute a Special Bench, “keeping in view the peculiar circumstances” of the case, to hear exclusively the four criminal appeals in the assets case on a day-to-day basis, complete the proceedings and pronounce the judgment in three months from Dec 18.
The time frame was set after Jayalalitha’s counsel Tulsi said he would require at least 30 working days to complete his arguments. The three months’ time was fixed on the consideration that the High Court might require at least a month after the arguments conclude to deliver the judgment.
Chief Justice Dattu orally observed that in case the appeal proceedings were not completed in three months, the apex court could be duly informed and an extension of 15 days considered.
This order of the Supreme Court fixing time frame for the completion and pronouncement of the judgment by the Karnataka High Court in the appeal of Jayalalitha and others has surprised many in judicial circles as no such order seemed to have been issued earlier in the history of Indian judiciary. There is also precedence of the apex court rejecting such pleas of Jayalalitha for speedy hearing of her appeals against the verdicts of lower courts. As she was convicted and sentenced for three years imprisonment in TANSI land case, she could not contest in the 2001 Assembly elections. However, without being elected to the Assembly, she managed to get sworn-in as Chief Minister and if she had to continue in the post she had to get elected to the Assembly before November 13, 2001. To felicitate it she filed petitions twice in the Supreme Court on September 7 and 14 that year pleading for direction to the Madras High Court for speedy hearing and disposal of her appeals against the judgment in TANSI case. But the apex court bench headed by Justice S.P.Bharucha rejected the plea of Jayalalitha, who was racing against the November 13 deadline to get elected to the Assembly, for an early hearing of her appeals pertaining to the TANSI land scam case by the Madras High Court. A three-judge bench comprising Justices S P Bharucha, Brijesh Kumar and Ashok Bhan dismissed her application seeking modification of the September 7 order of the apex court transferring the appeals to a new judge in the High Court to start hearing them afresh not before October 1. “Raising the plea same plea for the second time is not on,” the bench said, dismissing the application through which she had sought advancement of the hearing date from October 1 to September 25. Her appeals against the conviction in the two TANSI cases and a case pertaining to Pleasant Stay Hotel were pending in the High Court then.
Similarly, the Supreme Court on August 1 this year said that it cannot fast-track criminal cases against MPs alone, taking them to be a distinct category from other pending criminal cases.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asked MPs to get the pending criminal cases expedited in a bid to reduce criminality in politics. The Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice R.M.Lodha said there are several categories like women and senior citizens where criminal trial needs to be expedited. The apex court said this fast-tracking of a few categories is not helping to speed up criminal justice system as the manpower in trial courts and infrastructure is woefully inadequate. The Supreme Court asked the Modi government to come out with concrete proposal within four weeks, in consultation with States, on how to fast-track entire criminal justice system and not appointing a few special courts for some sensitive cases.
The Supreme Court said good governance means expeditious criminal justice delivery system. “Pendency of criminal cases for 10 years does not augur well for democracy,” the the bench said.
Declaring that there should be no space for criminals in Parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on June 11 sought the support of lawmakers to ask Supreme Court to complete trials of pending cases against MPs within a year. Narendra Modi, who had spoken of fast-tracking pending criminal cases against MPs during his campaign, said such an initiative will help punish the guilty and remove the taint from those MPs who are falsely charged. The PM said pending FIRs were like a sword hanging over lawmakers who suffered embarrassment “whenever one NGO or another publicizes the cases against them”. He linked his advocacy for MPs collectively opting for swift trials to his larger theme of restoration of people’s faith and redemption of India’s reputation.
In such circumstances, the biggest question that had crept in the minds of people is why such a special privilege is being extended to Jayalalitha alone. It may be because of the good intention that corruption case should be expeditiously heard and disposed of. But this case is absolutely undeserving even for showing this good intention. It was Jayalalitha who prolonged the trial of the case that should have been completed at the most in one year for more than 17 years by seeking nearly 185 adjournments, going on appeals after appeals to higher courts on flimsy grounds only to be rejected with stern warnings several times by the higher judiciary. From the judge of the trial court to the judges of the Supreme Court were irritated by the attitude of Jayalalitha in facing the case straight forward. When such an incorrigible and incongruous person is seeking speedy hearing of her appeal for her selfish interests, what is the need for accepting the plea, is the question in the minds of law abiding people.
The very objective of the electoral law disqualifying persons convicted in corruption cases from contesting in elections for six years after the end the period of sentence is to keep them out of any position in power only to make them repent and resent their misdeeds. The biggest punishment for such recalcitrant person with all possibilities for ruling the State, is her inability to use them and remaining shut at her residence due to her conviction in corruption case. She is undergoing this punishment by being removed from the post of Chief Minister though her party won in the elections. Though people who had committed various offences were acquitted in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove their crimes, the trials and tribulations undergone by them during the trial period and during appeals amounted to moral punishment. But should Jayalalitha, who “made a mockery of judicial process”, according to the observation of a judge of the Supreme Court, be spared of even this moral punishment?
According to recent reports there were more than 3.15 crore case including 64,919 cases in the Supreme Court were pending in courts all over the country. Even in such issues like Cauvery waters issue involving the life and livelihood of crores of people solution could not be found even after 40 years of litigation. Lakhs of innocent people were still undergoing imprisonment as under-trial convicts for periods more than the periods of sentence if the offences, they are accused of, were proved and convicted. In such circumstances people are unable to comprehend the fortune that will befall the country by the speedy hearing and disposal of the appeal of Jayalalitha alone!
The question of why the apex court, which did not direct the trial of the disproportionate assets case in the special court now hurrying up the appeal, has also crept in the minds of people. It is not known as to why the apex court did not take into account the axiom ‘Justice hurried is Justice buried’ just as ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’! Moreover, the directive that the appeal should be heard in two months and judgment delivered in the next one month is seen by the legal fraternity as exerting a sort of pressure on the judges of the Karnataka High Court who are to hear the appeal of Jayalalitha & co., particularly when the judges had to scrutinize and cross check with arguments of the two sides over 2.30 lakh pages of evidence submitted by them. Moreover, it is said that keeping the bail petition of Jayalalitha pending without disposal would also impact the hearing.
Former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, convicted in teachers’ appointment scandal case, was given bail only after 123 days. So also former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad, convicted in fodder scam case, was released on bail only after 75 days. No step was taken to speedy hearing of their appeals against trial court verdicts. Not only that, Om Prakash Chautala was arrested and lodged in prison for having violated bail condition. But, for Jayalalitha, who scantly disregarded judiciary repeatedly, was given bail without any condition. If she was given bail in consideration of her health condition or any other consideration, under what consideration others Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran were given bail and opportunities are given for their appeals to be heard speedily? All these raise the question in the minds of common man whether all are equal before law?
No comments:
Post a Comment