Every
now and then would come a case of #JusticeLoya or the case of #thedelayedverdictinJayalalithacase
or a similar issue to generate debate on the independence of the Judiciary in
our country.
Cho Ramasamy had long ago remarked
that to get a favorable verdict in the Court, one has to know the Judges than
knowing law.
Very many times, it has been pointed
out that Courts are called Courts of law rather than as Courts of Justice. It
is more so in India. And a very famous Chief Justice of India once remarked candidly, 'we are not final because we are necessarily right, but right because we are final'.
Even the complications in interpretation
of the provisions in the Constitution of India have been blamed on the numerous
lawyers who were deployed for the purpose, instead of lay men who could have
put it in simple terms.
But experience teaches us that even
simple things could be complicated by intelligent minds.
First the print media, then the visual
media and now the social media have created such a polarization among people
that a majority have taken sides and want to argue only the side chosen by
them, with brazenness, without an iota of guilt or shame and perpetuate their
beliefs to endless measure. Thus a considerable number of persons
involved in these debates have become lawyers themselves, though not
necessarily holding any formal degree permitting them to do so.
While the very concept of taking sides
is anathema to arriving at truth, the judicial principles enabled one to put
forth all possible angles for proper consideration.
In this process employment of
competent persons became a sine quo non to win one’s argument. Judicial
principles started faltering at this very point. Because, one who has more resources at one's
command can get hold of a better lawyer, who can put forth his side in a better
manner than the other one and truth became a prisoner of circumstances and
submissions and at God's mercy directly.
The higher judiciary has become more
costly with Senior Advocates becoming an essential requirement if arguments
have to be even heard. The cost of the
Senior Advocates ranges from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 15 Lahks - per
appearance. It is carefully worded as
appearance because it does not mandate that the advocate may have to even stand
up or open the mouth. Mere appearance
when the case is called – even if adjourned by the Court itself, or at the
request of the other party/parties. And
such appearances could be endless. Also do not miss the number of Judicial forums and procedures, in every single case. While for the Government, it would mean only the cost of paper on which the decision to litigate is taken, for the common man, it bleeds the life out of him. It is the same in the case of a common man's litigation against a corporate also, because the corporates have legal eagles empaneled.
When considered that famous Senior
Advocates appear in 20 cases on an average per day, one could estimate their earning.
Compared to the salary of the Judges,
these fees are several times high.
That would point out the basic pit
falls in judicial mechanism.
If judgment process is so costly, what
is the cost of justice?
If judicial process becomes so
complicated and costly, it invariably would become corrupt. A corrupt judiciary will only enable a corrupt
investigation system to thrive.
A small step towards solution of the
above problem would be to allow the parties to present their side in person,
if need be with the assistance of the advocates. Like in the RTI Act, litigants should be
allowed to argue their own cases, without restrictions. Legal formalities should not come in the way.
That reminds me of the attempt by the
Advocate community trying to step into the RTI Proceedings also, some years
ago. Luckily that attempt failed. But
the mechanism of RTI itself became whittled down.
Along with public education and public
health care, police/judicial reforms are urgently required for a just state to
exist.
Otherwise, any number of laws enacted
would be of no help.
