Justice delayed is Justice denied

By- Shruti Dey

Roll no – 01

LLM (1 year course)

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim meaning that if legal

redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not
forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress
at all. Justice delayed is justice denied is rightly the present scenario of India.
Justice though is difficult to define,bt can be said that it varies according to
situations and persons. Since we live in a deomocratic country like india where
people are governed by the laws of the country , it is very important to deliver
justice on time to the victims to prevent the miscarriage of justice. It is rightly
called the shield of innocence and the guardian of civil right. It is an old but and
a partial truth reflecting the darker areas of judicial system. If justice is not
timely provided then the aggrieved party may suffer and also loses its faith in
the judiciary system along with gross violation of his/her human rights. On
the 18th August 2012 while the Bombay high court was celebrating 150 years
of its existence the Hon’ble Prime Minister in the presence of the Hon'ble chief
justice of India is reported to have said that the government henceforth is to
work hand in hand with the judiciary to usher in an age of the speedy justice
delivery system in. the country to remove the adage "Justice delayed is Justice
denied" from the Indian judicial system. The adage is a blot on the reputation
of any judicial system anywhere in the world and each and all countries either
from time to time or continuously undertake one or the other exercise to
remove such blot from its own the then judicial system. Delay in dispensation
of justice incrementally devalue the real value of justice dispensed with and at
times makes it worthless. Is it implicit in the otherwise laudable
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Prime Minister that so long the Government
was not working hand in hand with the judiciary? If it is so, it must be very
disheartening and would amount to a great aspersion on both the judiciary
and the executive who are primarily and secondarily responsible for the well
or ill being of the judiciary delivery system in the country. The auspicious
occasion admits of a rather pathetically slow justice delivery system now in
existence in India which deserves and need attention from all the
constitutional wings of the state. Both the executive and the judiciary in
particular must address the issue to find out the required ways and means to
bring meaningful ‘speed ‘ in the justice delivery system. “Meaningful speed”
must necessarily include and mean less expensive but more but more effective
dispensation of justice and not mere ‘disposal’ of the matters now pending
decision and matters which are likely to crowd the system in the future. There
is a great distinction between decision and disposal. It is however true that
there can be both decision and disposal at the same time as there can also be
disposal without a decision. It is indisputable that speedy and less expensive
justice delivery system is a concomitant of effective dispensation of justice to
each and all who are compelled by their respective surrounding
circumstances to crowd the adjudicating authorities established and
recognised by law looking for appropriate redressal of their grievances.
Amongst others, the adjudicating courts and tribunals established by law are
the institutions which in the first place are traditionally approached for the
redressal of those grievances. These receptacles are not supposed to show any
interest or disinterest in receiving the grievances through their inlet but are
obliged to show deserving interest in discharging them through its outlet
within the quickest possible time. And if the grievances received are found to
be justified, appropriate remedies to redress their grievances are also
prescribed. Remedies prescribed are then required to be executed through the
executing machinery. The whole process appears to be simple and not
complicated. Why then is the delay? Is it because of the number received in
the receptacles or something more is responsible? Are the receptacles clean?
Are the receptacles afflicted with clogs which are inherent and inbuilt in the
receptacles? Do the receptacles function in a way which lends support to the
invention and creation of further clogs which along with others stand in the
way of quick decision and disposal. The number of courts and tribunals are
said to be inadequate to handle the number of grievances received. Mere
increasing the number of courts and tribunals followed by commensurate
increase in the number of judges are unlikely to do the trick. Courts and
tribunals must continuously and not intermittently have steady supply of
skilled personnel to fill in the posts of judges who having the requisite
knowledge and training and being professionally motivated would make
sincere effort to achieve the goal.

In order to inculcate skill one must have required intellect to receive the
required education and training. And the skilled personnel groomed cannot be
left alone. They would be required to be equipped with adequate state of the
art infrastructural support in all respects including human and technological
support while dispensing with justice. If the government is to act hand in hand
with the judiciary it must make an honest effort to understand and appreciate
the needs of the judiciary. It must come to the aid of the judiciary by supplying
those needs. And the judiciary is also to make an effort for optimum utilisation
of those needs, if supplied, to make the effort of the government fruitful to
achieve the common objective. Is the government so resourceful and willing to
adequately spend for those needs? Is the judiciary trained and ready to use
those needs to achieve the optimum output? Both statistics and performance
tend to give a very dismal picture. The backlog now existing in courts and
tribunals is huge and alarming. The existing backlog makes positive
contribution to the extension of the average waiting period between reception
of grievances and disposal thereof with a decision. Veerappa Moily, the then
Central Law Minister, had a fond dream if reducing the existing average
waiting period from 10 to 15 years to 2 to 3 years. But then he has to give up
his dream at the advent of Salman Khursid in his place and stead. Salman
Khursid has either refused to nurse the dream or has become oblivious of the
dream. He appears to be more engaged in a larger canvas. If the speed and
volume of outflow from the receptacle exceeds the speed and volume of
outflow from the receptacle exceeds the speed and volume of inflow into the
receptacles, the current backlog in the system can be taken care of in the near
future (the transitional period) and not otherwise. Any lacuna or shortfall in
any of the requirements envisaged above or any laxity is likely to derail the
whole effect. At present the system is not as efficient and equipped as it ought
to be. Shortfalls and gaps are huge and they are all around. During the
transitional period resources must be ensured more than what otherwise
would be required in the normal period. We must not also lose the sight of the
fact that increase in the population coupled with more and more of their
awareness about the rights (if not obligations) they are endowed with by our
Constitutional provisions and accompanying statutory provisions and their
proactive interpretation by the apex and other courts of the country to fructify
our constitutional dreams are bound to add to the volume of inflow in the
receptacles. Hence a prospective all inclusive roadmap is required to be
drawn to tackle the oncoming loads in the near future as well as in the distant
future. It is more than two decades now that the attempts are being made for
diverting the course of the flow. Methods are being devised to partly divert
the flow from the traditional courts and tribunals to dispute resolution
mechanism alternative to the courts and tribunals. This is popularly known as
alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the legal world. Along with the
alternative mechanism we must also endeavor to make the people understand
and appreciate that it is far cheaper to compromise than to take disputes to
any public or private forum for their resolution. In the recent Delhi Tis Hazari
Court incident the lawyers technically misused the power given to them by the
judiciary. On October 31, 2018, Supreme Court gave its verdict on the
1987 Hashimpura massacre case and sentenced 16 former policemen of the
41st Battalion of UP Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) to life
imprisonment. The massacre is the case of the targetted killing of May 1987
where policemen picked up and shot 42 Muslims in Hashimpura, Meerut. The
bodies were later thrown into a canal. In 1988, UP government directed CB-
CID to probe the matter. CB-CID, int their 1994 report, held 19 police
personnel guilty of the targetted killings. After 31 years of the tiring judicial
process, during which three police personnel died, 16 accused were found
guilty and slapped with life imprisonment. There is another famous case
of Delhi’s Uphaar Cinema fire mishap in June 1997, where 59 people died due
to suffocation. Later an inquiry committee, in its report, revealed that the
owner of the cinema hall was responsible for the mishap. It took 18 years to
get justice. The Supreme Court gave its ruling on this case in 2017. Third and
the worst example of judicial failure is a case of Machal Lalung. Twenty-three-
year-old Lalung belonged to the Tiwa tribe in Morigaon, Assam, and was
arrested in 1951 on the false charges of “causing grievous harm”. The Court
gave him a jail term of ten years. But due to health issues, he was transferred
to a psychiatric institution in Tezpur, where he was forgotten. In 1967, the
doctors certified him as fit, and he was moved to a jail in Guwahati, where he
spent nearly four decades. He was released in 2005 after the local human
rights groups brought his case to the attention of the National Human Right
Commission. It was found that he was punished for the crime which he has
not committed. When he released from the jail, he was of 77 years old.
The apex court ordered the Assam government to compensate him and
provide him with a monthly assistance amount. He was not able to speak
Assamese, Hindi or English. He knew only his tribal language. That’s why he
was not able to communicate with police and other officials. Lalung died in
2007. So when we look at the above examples, then one question arises that
“did they really get justice?” Few optimistic people may call it justice, while
few may differ. But for me, it is quite confusing. I mean when someone
commits a crime he should be punished accordingly but what if an accused got
punishment after 10 or 20 or 30 years after the incident. Can we call that
justice? The delays in delivering justice highlight the challenges of our
criminal justice system. If we look at the data, it tells that there are only 19
judges per 10 lakh people in India. There is a requirement of 50,000 judges
across the country, but there are only 18,000 are serving presently. There are
approximately 30 million pending cases, 60,260 in SC and 38.68 Lakh cases in
different high courts of India. Apart from this, there is the inadequacy of staff
attached to the courts. In vogue justice delayed justice denied is a very smooth
saying. But it is not as easy to understand without clarification as to what
actually is meant by the delay of justice. Justice is something meant to be
handled at the present moment. Without justice system there can be no state
worth the name. It is rightly called the shield of innocence and the guardian of
civil right. The reason one goes to court is to get justice, and "Justice Delayed is
Justice Denied" Unfortunately the judicial system in India is based on Evidences
and facts not conscience or morals, so it should be easier, once having the facts
at hand, all it needs is argument and hearing and quicker pronouncement of
Justice. A judicial system that cares only about evidences and facts shouldn’t
worry about taming the souls of the plaintiff and the defendant with time
rather give justice as quick as it can, this delay/denial of justice leads to
increasing "Out of Court settlements" which are cheaper and quicker thereby
leading to the loss of trust in our Judicial System. 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". In the Uphaar case it is
shocking that it took six years to establish that the 59 people died because of
criminal negligence on the part of the cinema management and the Delhi
government. It was clear from day one that nobody would have died had the
cinema followed safety rules but because the wheels of Indian justice move at
the pace of our national vehicle - the bullock cart - it took six years for justice to
be done. And, if the Ansal family and the guilty officials decide to appeal it could
be many more years before justice is really done.

It’s a big challenge for a democratic state like ours because when we talk
about our constitution then it says that there should be equal protection of
law and equality before the law but the reality seems contradictory. This
problem can only be solved with political will. So, the government should
consider this as an issue which needs a major reform in its infrastructural
level because it affects the lives of people and makes them worst. There
however appears to be some formidable clogs in the wheel to our utter
dismay. And these clogs are too often than not invented and created by the
advocates operating in the courts and tribunals. These self serving advocates
being purposely oblivious about their duties towards the justice
administrative system at large and particularly towards the courts and
tribunals (of which they are the priests) by their conduct (sometime very
reprehensible) deliberating contribute to the delay. For no justifiable reason
they even abstain from attending courts and tribunals or seek adjournments
of the hearing of the matters they are engaged in. And these advocates not too
that often also have the blessings of the judges and too often have the support
of the ministerial staff of the courts and tribunals in delaying the dispensation
if justice. The judge in the hope of gaining popularity indulges in granting
adjournment after adjournment of hearing. Lack of professionalism are
experienced both at the Bar as also on the Bench which also substantially
contribute to the delay in disposal. A fair change in the mind set of all is a must
and a condition precedent to achieving the desired result. There are too many
pitfalls and there cannot be any all inclusive list of those pitfalls are there are
never ending innovations. Unless a very sincere concerted effort is made by
all simultaneously those pitfalls will continue to subsist in the system creating
very damaging holes in the network and our efforts are bound to be wasted to
necessarily enlarge the gap between our ambition and achievement.