JUSTICE DELAYED IS

JUSTICE DENIED
Ayushi Singh
BA LLB 1A
LEGAL METHOD PSDA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper and the research behind it would not have been
possible without the exceptional support of my Legal Method
teacher, ‘Ms. Kanchan Lavania’. Her enthusiasm, knowledge,
and exacting attention to detail have been an inspiration and
kept my work on track from my first encounter with the logbooks
on Jurisprudence to the final draft of this paper. I am grateful for
the opportunity she has provided me to write a research paper
on the crucial topic, “JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE
DENIED.”
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude
towards the management and faculty of ‘Vivekananda Institute
of Professional Studies’ for providing me with the golden
opportunity of being able to share my research and views on the
causes and extent of justice being delayed in our country.
I am also grateful for the insightful comments offered by the
anonymous peer reviewers at Books & Texts. The generosity and
expertise of one and all have improved this study in innumerable
ways and saved me from many errors; those that inevitably
remain are entirely my responsibility.
SYNOPSIS
Historical acknowledgements of delays in the justice being provided often
recognize the perspective of either the accused or the disputant, and suggest that
for a person seeking justice, the time taken for resolution of their issue is often
considered the most critical element to the justice experience. In essence, these
acknowledgements are consistent with more recent research which has shown
that the time taken to deal with a dispute is a, and in many cases, critical factor in
determining whether or not people consider the justice system of a particular state
to be just and fair.
To explore delay as the critical factor which shapes a user's perception of whether
justice has or has not been done, it is important to define timeliness as a concept
detrimental enough to judge the quality of justice provided, and by distinction, to
define delay. The concepts of timeliness and delay are distinct notions and a
thorough understanding of both the definitions is necessary to form an opinion
free from any preconceived notion or personal bias. As human beings, timeliness
has always been quite a complex and subjective concept, which means that its
definition varies from individual to individual which includes disputants, legal
and other professionals, academics, court staff, administrators, judges, and others.
In literature, there are multiple ‘definitions of timeliness’, many of which refer to
elements of a process, rather than an objective statement about the actual meaning
of timeliness. Most of these definitions of timeliness do not refer to it in the
context of the broader justice system but are confined to relevance only in court
and tribunal processes and they are usually discussed concerning ‘time
standards.’
This paper's primary focus is on the issues in the justice system that are related to
timeliness and the interconnectedness of the definition of delay and implies that
the nature of delay in the current justice environment is contingent on many
aspects and mechanisms utilized by the modern justice system. The question of
whether justice delayed is justice denied appears to depend on whether the delay
is inappropriate, out of proportion, or avoidable. Proportionality and
appropriateness of time taken to provide an outcome for disputants is said to form
part of the definition of timeliness, as per the definition we have often read in
books or newspapers.
INDEX

Serial Name of the case cited

No.

1. The assassination of victims of Uphaar Tragedy

vs Union of India (2003)

2. Sidhartha Vashishtha alias Manu Sharma vs

State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)

3. Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2017)

4. Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India

Etc on 4 May 1989

5. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ... vs The State of

Tamil Nadu on 30 September 2011

6. Doshipura Graveyard case

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is a legal maxim and a quite popular saying used by people
when it comes to late delivery of the required remedies for the issues faced and this saying has
been going on since time immemorial as it has been articulated in many different ways for
thousands of years. Historical acknowledgments recognize this quote to be said by a British
statesman and Liberal politician William E Gladstone in the late 1800s but he was not the first
to express this notion1 numerous examples suggest that for a person seeking justice, the time
taken for resolution of their issue is critical to the justice experience of this person and can
render their treatment wholly 'unjust' in circumstances where finalization of a dispute takes
‘too long.’

To explore delay as one of the most crucial factors in the determination of justice being served,
a factor which influences a person's perception of whether justice has or has not been done, it
is important to define timeliness as an individual concept, and by distinction, taking a quite
different approach to defining delay. The concepts of timeliness and delay are distinct ideas
and a thorough understanding of the definition of one is necessary for the definition of the
other. Timeliness is a complex and particular concept, which means that it is often defined
differently by people in general which includes disputants, legal and other professionals,
academics, court staff, administrators, judges, and others. Literature provides us with resources
that provide us multiple ‘definitions of timeliness’, many of which refer to elements of a
process, rather than an objective statement about the meaning of timeliness. Most of these
definitions of timeliness do not refer to it in the context of the broader justice system but are
confined to relevance only in court and tribunal processes and they are usually discussed
regarding ‘time standards.’ A time standard may measure waiting times and can require, for
example, that 90% of all cases commenced in a lower civil court be finalized within six
months.2

Time standards are often how the timeliness of a particular decision is measured and these are
often regarded as a proxy for timeliness. However, the two are not interchangeable. Generally,

1
The idea is said to have first been expressed in the biblical writings of Pirkei Avot 5:8, a section of the
Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE) in which it is stated ‘Our Rabbis taught: ...[t]he sword comes into
the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied...’; as well as in the Magna Carta of 1215, cl 40 of
which reads, ‘[t]o no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.; Martin Luther King Jr
also said 'justice too long delayed is justice denied in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (August 1963).
2
See, e.g., New South Wales Government, Local Court Time Standards (14 March 2012)
time standards are measures of efficiency and effectiveness set by courts and other institutions
to support performative standards and indicators that aim to ensure efficient processes and
accountability.3

General understanding of the existence of timeliness tells us that when justice is not carried out
within the expected timeframe, the delay in appropriate judgment can serve as an advantage to
the accused providing more than enough time to tamper and manipulate the provided facts and
figurines crucial to the case including witnesses/evidence which are sensitive enough to change
the trajectory of the entire judgment ultimately causing injustice to the injured party, therefore,
helping the culprit to walk out freely while facing little to no consequences of their
ethical/inhumane actions at all which often results into injured party facing more damages and
injustice than they did before the judgment which turns into complete loss faith in the judicial
system.

Loss of faith in the judiciary is often treated as a failure for democracy as a whole because the
judiciary is an inseparable part of our democracy and all its implications must be imported into
the judicial process for the proper functioning of a healthy society. Once we accept the
proposition that in a democratic society the legal system plays a crucial role in seeing that
neither license 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".4

Our country has been blessed with an exceptional Constitution thanks to our lawmakers which
aimed at protecting the rights of every citizen by introducing article 39 A enunciated as one of
the Directive Principles of State Policy which states that,” the state shall secure that the

3
Sourdin, The Timeless Project, above n 3.
4
Deepak Miglani,” How slow a process litigation should be?” legalserviceindia.com available at
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/jdjd.htm
operation of the legal system shall promote justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and shall
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen.”5

But even after 74 years of independence, it’s quite fair to say that the State has failed squarely
on addressing the very necessities of the population which is quick and inexpensive justice and
protecting the rights of poor and the vulnerable. It’s unfortunate to say that our justice delivery
system is on the verge of collapse as more than 33 million cases have resulted in subsequent
clogging of the system with some cases taking a generation to get any type of redressal.

According to former Supreme Court Judge Justice (retd) Markandey Katju,” It is estimated that
if no fresh case is filed, it will take about 360 years to clear the backlog of cases in all the Indian
courts.” He was writing at a time when the total pendency stood at about 3.5 crores.”6

To understand the extent of the delay, we need to take a glance at some landmark judgments
that serve as a testimonial of the plight of victims showing us a disturbing side of the Indian
Legal system that reflect a disappointing reality of untimely delayed justice finally being
served, causing little to no remedy considering the emotional and mental turmoil the victim's
families went through while some of the victims failed to see the sun shining on the morning
their culprits were finally penalized for their heinous crimes.

In the Assassination of victim of Uphaar Tragedy vs Union of India (2003)7, it is extremely

shocking that even a crystal-clear case like this took six years to establish the fact that 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 no person would have been harmed only if the
cinema had followed safety rules but since the wheels of our beloved Indian judiciary system
move at the pace of our national vehicle - the bullock cart - it took six years for justice to be
done. But if the Ansal family and the guilty officials decide to appeal to defend themselves, it
could be many more years before justice is done.

In-State vs Sidhartha Vashisht and Ors. on 18 December 20068 which was later filed again
from the side of the accused Sidhartha Vashishtha alias Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi)

5
Article 39 A Ins. by s. 8, the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
6
Kenneth Mohanty,” EXPLAINED: CJI Ramana Says 4.5 Crore Cases Pending, Here's What Has Been
Fuelling Backlog In Indian Courts” news18.com available at
https://www.news18.com/news/explainers/explained-cji-ramana-says-4-5-crore-cases-pending-heres-what-has-
been-fuelling-backlog-3977411.html
7
Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy ... vs Union of India (UoI) And Ors. on 24 April 2003 indiankanoon.org
available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897117/
8
State vs Sidhartha Vashisht and Ors. on 18 December 2006 indiankanoon.org available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1238469/
(2010)9 famously known as the Jessica Lal murder case in which the victim was shot dead by
the accused on April 29, 1999, and after 7 years, due to the intense media and public pressure,
the high court conducted the hearings within 25 days in the fast-track courts where Manu
Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20th December 2006. However, actual justice
was served on 25th April 2010, where the accused was punished for murdering the victim out
of rage just because the victim refused to offer him a drink in exchange for money. This case
is a classic example of a privileged person using their power and influence as a safeguarding
instrument to not fear the consequence of their actions which in turn caused a person to lose
their life while their family suffered for more than 7 years in the hopes of getting justice from
our legal system.

The case of Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 10 shook the entire nation on 16th
December 2012 where 6 men assaulted, gang-raped, and brutalized a 23-year-old female in a
bus which she and her male friend had boarded. The incident caused widespread outrage among
the population to which a fast-track session was called and the fact that one of the accused was
a minor, this case was treated in the rarest of the rare category. Even after mass outrage, media
trials, and fast track sessions, it took 7 years for the court to finally bring justice to the victim
by hanging the culprits to death.

Often termed as the most disastrous and horrific accident ever happened in an industry, the
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India Etc on 4 May 198911 most popularly known as
the Bhopal Gas tragedy serves as one of the most devastating examples of delayed justice in
our country where the helpless victims have been waiting for compensation and justice for
more than 30 years. On December 3, 1984, about 45 tons of the dangerous gas methyl
isocyanate escaped from an insecticide plant that was owned by the Indian subsidiary of the
American firm Union Carbide Corporation. The gas drifted over the densely populated
neighborhoods around the plant, killing thousands of people immediately and creating a panic
as tens of thousands of others attempted to flee Bhopal. The final death toll was estimated to
be between 15,000 and 20,000. Investigations later established that substandard operating and

9
Sidhartha Vashishtha alias Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) indiankanoon.org available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1515299/
10
Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) indiankanoon.org available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68696327/
11
Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India Etc on 4 May 1989) indiankanoon.org available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1344892/
safety procedures at the understaffed plant had led to the catastrophe. Unfortunately, to this
date, the victims haven’t received the expected damages.

Most recently, Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan was finally, after
multiple hearings, granted bail by the Bombay High Court on Thursday.12

He was detained by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NC), after the agency busted a drug party
on a cruise ship, and recovered drugs like hashish, cocaine, and MD, on October 2. The 23-
year-old was detained and arrested the next day and was booked under sections 8C, 20B, 27,
and 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act13.

Aryan Khan’s counsel, which was initially led by Satish Manishinde, then by Amit Desai and
later former Attorney General Mukhul Rohatgi, have argued that the agency has no case against
him since nothing was recovered from him.

Now the noteworthy point here is that the son of our country's biggest superstar who possesses
an entire army of lawyers, policemen, media, government officials, and possibly all the
resources required to get his son out of trouble was detained in custody for 27 days even when
nothing was found of him so imagine the plight of those convicts who have been in serving
sentences/custodial punishments for offenses they didn't commit and are awaiting the verdict
of the court to be freed.

Multiple landmark cases such as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ... vs The State of Tamil Nadu
on 30 September 201114 and The Doshipura Graveyard case15 (longest case in the Indian
judicial history that has been going on since 1878) are more than efficient enough to convey
the idea of the extent of delay of justice in our country.

12
The Entire Timeline of Aryan Khan Drug Case outlookindia.com available at
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/entertainment-news-the-entire-timeline-of-aryan-khan-drug-
case/399137
13
THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 available at
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1985-61.pdf
14
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam ... vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 30 September 2011
indiankanoon.org available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180996250/
15
The Indian court case that started in 1878 bbc.com available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
india-21446272
After witnessing the extent of delay by examining facts and figurines of various landmark
cases, an assessment of reasons for such delays becomes mandatory where we look at various
sets of reasons and explanations regarding such delays.

The Indian judicial system is often compared to a giant never-ending complex cobweb where
the small insects (injured party or the witnesses) get caught and the big insect (defending party
often consisting of rich socialites and influential people) smashes it. Corruption in the judicial
system is often seen as the biggest obstacle while delivering justice to the needy be it done by
officials, lawyers, judges, or middlemen.

In 2016, the then Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur lashed at the government
"Therefore not only in the name of the litigant… the poor litigant languishing in jail but also
in the name of the country and progress, I beseech you to realize that it is not enough to criticize
the judiciary…You can't shift the entire burden on the judiciary, nothing has moved since 1987.
″16

At the heart of the CJI’s address were four strands of very crucial arguments: that present judges
are overwhelmed by the load of litigation being put forth on their shoulders; judicial vacancies
are not being filled up; the appointments procedure is getting stuck at the level of the
government for obscure reasons; and that without the wheels of justice turning smoothly, the
common man will suffer the most.

CJI Justice T.S. Thakur mentioned how the Law Commission in 1987 had recommended
40,000 judges in the country to tide over the problem of pendency of that time yet the quoted
proposition hasn't been implemented properly.

There’s no doubt in the notion that India has a complex judicial system. Cases keep on going
from inferior to the superior courts, new arguments, new evidence arises, dates are given after
an interval of a long time sometimes a year. Retrials happen, and in this way, years pass, and

16
Jannat, “Justice delayed is justice denied” – how can we deal with the inefficiency of courts in a fast-changing
society ipleaders.in available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/justice-delayed-justice-denied-can-deal-inefficiency-
courts-fast-changing-society/
sometimes decades pass. Meanwhile, it’s the victims who have to suffer the plight of our
complex judicial structure.

Due to the presence of complexities, corruption, and involvement of various unethical

elements, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Indian
judiciary. Mysteriousness in the judicial process is a matter of public concern.

To tackle the issue of delayed justice, multiple solutions have been proposed by the visionaries
namely Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), appointment of Ad Hoc judges, fast track
courts, introduction of information technology in the field of litigation, appointment of judges
proposed by the Law Commission of 1987, reducing corruption and making the system
transparent enough to benefit those seeking justice.

CONCLUSION
There’s no denial in the fact that after witnessing a pendency of more than 4.5 crore cases that
is going to take an estimate of 360 years of time to be resolved if no new case is registered, our
Indian Judicial has not been quite promising in delivery timely justice to the victims and their
families and as the idiom ’Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’ is self-explanatory that an
irrational adjournment in justice management, we still hope that the system may apply the
proposed solution given by visionaries that might bring peace, prosperity and justice to
everyone.