Need collaboration between Bar and Bench to address issue highlighted by President Murmu, says legal luminaries

This collective effort is seen as essential for reforming the judicial system to better serve all citizens.

 

Former Additional Solicitor General Pinki Anand highlighted President Murmu’s focus on the detrimental culture of adjournments in the judiciary, which discourages citizens from seeking justice. She underscored the need for cooperation between the Bar and the Bench to address these challenges. Anand also noted that new criminal laws and updated provisions in the Civil Procedure Code and Arbitration Act include strict timelines for procedures. She stressed that legal practitioners must rigorously adhere to these laws, both in their arguments and in practice.

 

Former Union Law Secretary P.K. Malhotra commented that the President of India, as both the head of state and the first citizen, wields significant executive, legislative, judicial, and financial powers. This role includes addressing Parliament at the start of each budget session to discuss government policies and schemes. In the current political and economic climate, the President must actively engage and not merely serve as a figurehead.

 

Malhotra emphasised that the President’s recent concerns about the judicial system’s accessibility and effectiveness, particularly regarding delays and inefficiencies, require serious attention. He noted that such issues are not new; past Chief Justices have also raised similar concerns, yet substantial improvements remain elusive.

 

Advocate Sumit Gehlot, an expert in constitutional matters, agreed with President Murmu’s concern about delays in heinous crimes such as rape, stating that such delays are critical. Any unnecessary delay not only prolongs the victim’s suffering but also obstructs the delivery of timely justice. Gehlot suggested additional mechanisms in courts, such as minimising survivors’ appearances, treating them with sensitivity, conducting cross-examinations of victims without delay, and holding the accused accountable for actions that cause delays. He also advocated for the adoption of advanced technologies in trials, such as sending warrants and summons via email, recording evidence through videoconferencing, and utilising forensic laboratories. He called for the establishment of a separate investigation branch for sexual offences, with properly trained and equipped police officers handling these cases.

 

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra welcomed President Murmu’s focus on judicial delays and stressed the importance of judges and lawyers collaborating effectively to ensure the prompt disposal of cases. She also highlighted the need for the Secretariat to work proactively to support this goal, facilitating a more efficient workflow for both judges and lawyers.

 

Ramesh K. Vaidyanathan, Managing Partner at BTG Advaya, discussed the challenges in accessing and delivering justice highlighted by President Murmu. He pointed out that existing laws have not kept pace with the growing caseload and population and noted a significant shortfall in investment in technology, infrastructure, manpower, and quality judicial appointments. Vaidyanathan added that these delays lead to forgotten testimonies, unavailability of key participants, low conviction rates, and eroded public trust. He also noted that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods have not been effective due to a lack of awareness among litigants, insufficient initiative from judges, and disinterest from lawyers. Additionally, he suggested that plea bargaining, which is common in many countries, is rarely used in India and could help alleviate the burden on the judicial system. Vaidyanathan stressed the urgent need for reforms to address these issues and enhance the efficiency of the judicial process.

 

Rajesh Narain Gupta, Founder and Chairman of SNG and Partners, Advocates and Solicitors, remarked, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” He expressed concern that even after 75 years of independence, India still struggles with internal deadlock in such a crucial organ of government. Gupta called for strong political will and serious intervention from stakeholders to address the delays and make the judicial system work efficiently. He noted that while the rich and famous still get hearings, for the poor and downtrodden, it’s a nightmare. Gupta suggested that empowering lok adalats to settle existing cases, reducing government litigation, increasing the number of courts and judges, providing meaningful training for the judiciary, especially at lower levels, and strictly monitoring judicial systems and processes could lead to a paradigm shift. He concluded that with the right intent, nothing is unsolvable, and government direction, along with the cooperation of the Bar and the Bench, is crucial.