We need judicial system reforms to ensure swift disposal of cases
₹10,000 for the first adjournment sought by a disputant and double that sum for every subsequent one. Why do lawyers seek more than three adjournments and courts grant these in spite of the fact that it is irregular? Many lawyers, especially senior ones, have many briefs on their hands, and when conflicting timings of case hearings arise in different courts, their juniors are asked to seek fresh dates. Most often, judges oblige.
Lawyers on the opposite side tend to play ball, as they themselves may need such favours in some other matter. This acts as an unwritten code, but disputants are the victims of frequent adjournments for the calendar convenience of a few professionals. Let’s analyse the contours of the 44 million cases pending in different courts in the country today.
Lawyers have not appeared in court in more than 7.5 million cases. In 4.1 million cases, the accused has been declared a fugitive, and in 3.2 million cases, witnesses have not reached courts. In around 3.6 million cases, vital records are either missing or documents are not available.
Effective court management is crucial for the smooth and efficient operation of the judicial system. The primary objective of court management is to guarantee the fair and timely delivery of justice. In developed countries with functional systems, in most cases, the judge confers with lawyers on both sides on clear timelines for each step as soon as a matter is lodged.
Alas, this is not practised in India—and it calls for thought. While India has a National Courts Management Systems (NCMS) policy and several states have followed suit, its implementation in letter as well as spirit will hold the key. A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) has also been developed
. Read more on livemint.com
