With over 70 per cent of all court cases involving Government entities and millions of cases pending across the country, the Centre’s recent move to reduce litigation is a welcome first step

The Central Government’s intention to reduce the volume of court cases should be warmly welcomed. After all, 70 per cent of cases in the courts of the country involve the Governments, whether at the Centre or in the States. On the other hand, speeding up the hearing of cases and the passing of judgments also need to be expedited. The amount of time spent on each matter too needs to be recorded.

This is perhaps not being done, and if that is the case, it is certainly not published, as it may embarrass some of the judges as well as advocates. Adjournments are the main cause of delays, and delays are the bane of justice. They are often used as tactics to slow down or even snuff out the progress of the hearings. At times, they are sought because the leading advocate of one or the other side is busy in another case in another court —maybe even in another city.

For the ensuing waste of the court’s time, a repeat court fee of, say, 50 per cent of the initial amount should be charged to the side that seeks the adjournment. When the client is debited for this fee, he would learn a lesson not to engage an advocate who is so busy as to be distracted by several other cases. The freedom to appeal upwards, again and again, should be reduced. Some matters which began in a small cases court in, say, Mumbai have reached the apex court. Normally, one appeal to each side may be permitted. In special circumstances, perhaps two could be considered.

Before a hearing begins in a matter, the judge should, in consultation with both the advocates, decide how much time each of them would be given. If either side exceeds their limit, they should have to pay extra fees — rather like in a journey by a taxi. Why should the court waste its time merely because an advocate is slow to think or express themselves, or keeps repeating themselves? As a layman, I am surprised that the litigant has to begin by submitting, usually, a lengthy affidavit.

On the night before the first hearing, the judge reads and digests all that has been stated in that affidavit. In the hearing, the advocate verbally explains to the judge and the opposing advocate what is written in the affidavit. Is this not a repetitive procedure? Surely, it can be cut down? Once, I happened to get a chance to read an opinion on a matter by a Kolkata advocate as well as a London lawyer. I was surprised to see that the UK draft was written in about 300 words while the Indian one was longer, at over a thousand words. For us Indians, writing in English has not been the soul of wit. Since a great deal of legal work is written, this becomes an important area of check. Incidentally, judgments or orders are not always brief or terse.

And what about the working hours of the courts themselves — or, more accurately, the duration of the court machinery? While one does not wish to be uncharitable, their Lordships across the country’s courts taking off for vacations has begun becoming the topic of much talk.

In a country whose justice system is clogged with pending cases whose number runs into a few crores, such judicial holidays need a relook. It is important to bear in mind that these longish and regular vacations for judges and senior lawyers is a practice from the British days — a period when there was no air-conditioning. The summer of the Indian plains was simply unbearable for most judges, and long vacations in the hill stations of Simla, Darjeeling, Ooty, or the cold valley of Kashmir was understandable — but not in today’s age, when technology has made it possible to overcome many challenges of nature.

The present hours of work in the country’s courtrooms too are not encouraging, as far as utilisation of both time and manpower are concerned. Most courts begin their proceedings at 10:30 or thereabouts and conclude at 16:30 — i.e., working for six hours, but effectively five, because there is an hour off for lunch. Saturdays and Sundays are not counted here.

With overburdened judges and a mountain of cases piling up by the day, it is high time a shift system was introduced in the judiciary. There is no reason why courts cannot work in shifts, reducing the workload on the judges and advocates, plus ensuring more employment opportunities for many unemployed lawyers and other associated staff.

There are many advocates in the country who stand to gain by such a measure in the form of making the law and thereby, the country’s legal system — accessible to the lower rungs of society.

The latter point is too obvious to bear iteration here. The then Chief Justice of India, Y K Sabharwal, had in 2006 not mooted the idea of courts needing to work in dual shifts in order to reduce the workload. The accessibility of justice to the common folk of the country has to become the topmost priority for judicial reforms in the country.

(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha)