The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Wanted: a shift system in courts

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 18, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Wanted: a shift system in courts

P.P. Rao

The system, which is economical and easy to implement, should be introduced.

DELAY DEFEATS justice. Arrears of cases are piling up in all courts and tribunals. Litigants are suffering. Writ petitions which are supposed to provide quick relief remain pending for years. Speedy trial is a fundamental right, yet criminal trials drag on, notwithstanding the few fast track courts functioning. Election cases, if not decided before the next poll, become infructuous. Commercial disputes, tax matters, and many others have been pending for long. The Civil Procedure Code has been amended to facilitate alternative dispute resolution. Use of information technology and computerisation of courts have begun. It takes time. New courts are expensive. Speedy justice is a necessity. There has to be a feasible way out.

On July 25, 2006, the Chief Justice of India proposed that courts work in two shifts. Four days later he reiterated his proposal and hoped to make a beginning by December. The President welcomed the idea on the spot. First mooted in 1984, the shift system, which is most economical and easy to implement, is beneficial to one and all. The Law Commission in its 125th report (1988) recommended introducing the system in the Supreme Court. Ram Jethmalani as Law Minister thought of it but did not act. The Justice V.S. Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003) has recommended introduction of the shift system in all criminal courts. Factories work in shifts. All media — print, audio and electronic — work in shifts. Some educational institutions, including law colleges, work in two shifts. There should be no difficulty for courts and tribunals also to do so.

Relief for litigants

First and foremost among the beneficiaries will be the litigant public. If every court and every tribunal work in two shifts, the rate of disposal of cases will go up. Litigants who have been waiting for justice for years will get relief soon. Pending cases need to be classified and priority fixed for disposal. Criminal cases that involve the life and liberty of persons deserve to be decided first. Quick disposal of criminal cases will to some extent act as a deterrent to potential criminals.

Violations of human rights deserve priority. Old civil cases too need early decision. Disposal of tax cases benefits both assessees and the exchequer. Arbitration and commercial cases too deserve attention. Cases of pensioners, widows, senior citizens and poor people involve urgency. Matrimonial matters obviously merit early disposal.

Additional judges and administrative staff will be required. The Law Commission and the Malimath Committee have recommended reappointment of retired judges to the extent available. The services of recently retired court staff could also be utilised, after screening for fitness, integrity and ability. Selection of judicial officers to man lower courts could be made by the High Courts concerned. For the Supreme Court and the High Courts the existing selection method may be followed. To make up for the shortfall, fresh recruitment would be necessary at all levels. Retired judges and judicial officers would be able to dispose of more cases than their counterparts in the first shift. They will ensure smooth functioning.

The additional expenditure involved will not be much as the second shift can be run with the existing court halls, furniture, equipment, library, etc. Re-employed personnel need be paid only the difference between the prescribed emoluments and their pension, although the Law Commission was against deduction of pension. House rent allowance and remuneration for new recruits will involve additional expenditure. Considering the advantages of two shifts, Governments cannot plead financial constraints.

There is a general feeling that lawyers oppose change; even change for the better, which is not true. Lawyers tend to point out difficulties, if any, in implementation. They do not obstruct. Five years ago, when I suggested the shift system at a conference organised by the Legal Services Authority, the then CJI had doubts whether the Bar would cooperate. I assured him that it would help the needy members of the Bar as well. In every independent profession, a few members command a large volume of work. Many others have enough work to maintain themselves and their families well, but there are several members who cannot make both ends meet. The shift system will result in distribution of work, which helps such lawyers. The second shift needs more lawyers. Very few leading senior lawyers would be able to withstand the stress and strain of practising in both shifts. There is no reason to apprehend that the Bar, which is going to benefit, will oppose shift system. The state, which is the biggest litigant today, will also benefit immensely by speedy justice.

The prospect of re-employment of clean and efficient judges and judicial officers in the second shift after their retirement will encourage honesty and efficiency among the existing incumbents. It will also strengthen the independence of the judiciary as retired judges need not look up to the Executive for assignments so long as their services are needed for the second shift.

The timings are not uniform in all courts. The working hours of lower courts are more than the High Courts. Convenient working hours have to be fixed for the two shifts. The Malimath Committee has suggested 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.for the first shift and 2.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. for the second. The timings can vary from State to State depending on weather conditions and other local factors.

The second shift need not be a permanent feature. It can be wound up after the disposal of accumulated arrears.

(The writer is a senior Supreme Court lawyer.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion