JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
The system of justice delivery in a country affects both roles played by an individual – that of a consumer and a citizen. A fair and timely justice system increases the freedom available to an individual, reduces vulnerability to anti-social and secessionist movements, builds up trust in a society and keeps citizens free from the excesses of the legislative and the executive. On the economic front, a good justice system helps enforcement of contracts and reduces uncertainty, thereby reducing transaction costs and cost of capital. The need for a sound justice system therefore, is well established.
The current litigation system of India is not only antique in nature but has become cumbersome and time consuming as well. The backlog of cases is increasing day by day affecting the outcome of various cases. More than two and half crores (As per the Ministry of Law and Justice press release 48,838 cases are pending in Supreme Court, 38,82,074 cases pending in high Court and 2,52,40,185 are pending in subordinate courts as on 31.1.2011) of case are pending in our courts. That means at least five crore people are directly involved in litigation and we have only 12,500 judges at lower court level and about 647 judges at various High Court and 31 judges in Supreme Court of India.
For decades judicial system has been crying for reforms as the cheap and speedy justice has been by and large elusive. There is a huge pendency of over 2.5 crore cases despite measures to reduce it. Experts have expressed fears that there has been a loss of public confidence in the judiciary, and an increasing resort to lawlessness and violent crime to settle disputes. They feel that public confidence in the judiciary must be restored immediately, in order to arrest and reverse this negative trend.
The Essay on Poor And The Justice System
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that every criminal defendant has a right to have an attorney. The poor are appointed an attorney normally known as a public defender to defend them. The poor are given substandard representation in courts due to lack of funds and a broken criminal justice system. The criminal justice system has made strides forward. The Sixth Amendment ...
Over the last five decades various legally constituted/government authorities such as the Law Commission of India, Parliamentary Standing Committees, and other government appointed Committees, several benches of the Supreme Court, eminent lawyers and judges, various legal associations/ organizations and NGOs have identified problems in the judicial system and called for addressing them speedily. Yet, the effective implementation of many such recommendations is still pending.
REFORMS TO IMPROVE JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
We are a country of a billion people. The fundamental question is: How do we design and structure a legal system which can render justice to a billion people? The possibility of a justice-delivery mechanism in the Indian context and the impediments for dispensing justice in India is, thus, required to be examined.
Legal reform is a difficult process. There are several competing interests involved which must be reconciled. This was clear when certain initiatives in legal reform were taken in India over the last three years. Reform cannot be achieved overnight; it is long-drawn-out process. Passing new laws is just one stage of the whole process. International experience has shown that legal reform requires careful preparation, meticulous planning, effective execution, elaborate coordination of public officials and disparate institutions, as well as the agreement or at least acquiescence of those directly affected by it. Success in carrying out legal reform requires considerable commitment and patience. But success is elusive as the process of legal reform often has unintended consequences and sometimes is blocked by unexpected events. There are, of course, many examples of successful reforms. Yet, their success is difficult to measure and evaluate.
The Essay on The Fight Theory And The American Legal System
The aim of the legal profession is to seek out the truth and provide justice for those who were wronged. Lawyers represent clients who are on opposite sides of the case, and who most often have opposite views of the truth. In the legal system there exist two opposing views on the method of uncovering the truth. Many people do not think that these two systems can coincide and believe that they ...
The judicial system in India faces two diverse problems
• Slow disposal of cases leading to delays as well as accumulation of backlog
• Very low rate of prosecution in criminal cases.
The challenge of judicial reforms is to ensure that quick justice does not become a quicksand of barbaric practices, while at the same time expediting the judicial process as well as ensuring that the percentage of guilty escaping punishment is reduced considerably.
The issues suggested below are not exhaustive but it is hoped that a national consensus on these issues followed by appropriate actions will go a long way in ensuring that the judiciary and thereby democracy in India gets strengthened. After doing the research and discussion among the group we propose the following actions:
A. Simplification of Rules and Procedures
Most Rules and Procedures in India have their roots in a colonial background when rules were made by the “superior” race for the “natives”. The key design consideration is, generally, the convenience of the bureaucratic machinery rather than the common man. It is essential to bring about a paradigm change in this mind-set and carry out a re-engineering of the complete set of rules and procedures.
B. Judge Population Ratio
The number of judges per 100,000 people in India is very low as compared to most developed countries and also in comparison to some developing countries. It needs to be discussed whether there should be a statutory provision prescribing a minimum ratio or a consensus may be evolved to work towards realizable time-bound targets in this regard. It may also be examined if some system of Honorary Judges who are not full time judges can be worked out for some class of cases.
C. Time-bound Filling of Vacant Posts in Judiciary
Judicial appointments and promotions need to be streamlined to ensure that posts do not remain vacant for any length of time. Appropriate institutional structure may need to be created that will estimate the posts likely to fall vacant in future and take the necessary steps in anticipation. The role of High Courts, Supreme Court and Administration may need to be redefined to make the process transparent, fair, smooth and fast.
The Essay on Us Court System
U.S. Court System (1) In his article Racially Biased Justice Still Infects American Courtrooms, Jesse Jackson argues that American legal system is biased towards representatives of racial minorities. He describes the incident at Jena High School, when six Black students were charged with aggravated assault, after they crippled up a White youth, who they suspected of being a racist. Apparently, ...
D. Appointment, Promotion and Transfer of Judges
A judiciary is just about as good as the people who man it. Ensuring high quality of judicial officers and judges is critical for a high quality judicial system. Getting the best talent and maintaining high level of motivation is possible if and only if the system is fair and transparent in all matters that concern the person who is a part of it. Appointment, promotion and transfer are, hence, critical to build a high quality judicial system. Working out a fair and transparent system in all such matters must, therefore, receive high priority.
E. Judicial Accountability
It is ironic that a judge can order for a man to be hanged or to be imprisoned for the best part of his life and a few years later some higher court can set aside the order of the lower court, without any system of punishing the lower court judge for a bad order. Every other pillar of democratic governance is subject to some system of ensuring accountability and checks and balances. Judiciary has neither a system of rewards nor a system of punishments. It is necessary to discuss whether attempts to improve the quality of judicial system should include some mechanism of rewards and punishments for judicial officers and judges monitored and operated either by an internal institution or by an external body.
F. Transparency of Court Proceedings
Indian courts do not allow electronic media presence during court proceedings, while in many other countries trials are extensively covered by media leading to active interest of the common man in the judicial proceedings. It is necessary to discuss whether the judiciary and justice will gain by more transparency.
G. Faster and Speedy Cases Resolutions
The rate of resolving the cases need to improved at much faster rate. We feel that each court to ensure that no more than 5% of the cases in that court should be more than 5 years old (5×5 rule) within the next three years; and in 5 years to ensure that no more than 1% of the cases should be more than 1 years old (1×1 rule).
H. More Focus on the use of IT for faster disposal of cases and improvements
The Term Paper on Parliamentary System Party Legislature Government
"As at present constituted, the federal government [of the United States of America] lacks strength because its powers are divided, lacks promptness because its authorities are multiplied, lacks wieldiness because its processes are roundabout, lacks efficiency because its responsibility is indistinct and its action is without competent direction." Although this statement, by Woodrow Wilson, was ...
Indian courts do not allow electronic media presence during court proceedings, while in many other countries trials are extensively covered by media leading to active interest of the common man in the judicial proceedings. It is necessary to discuss whether the judiciary and justice will gain by more transparency. bottlenecks causing delays in civil and criminal process to be monitored through a computerized system and special attention to be provided through a special cell at the High Court and District level to resolve issues in coordination with Executive Agencies : (a) Service of process; (b) Adjournments; (c) Interlocutory Orders; and (d) Appearance of witnesses and accused.
ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL SYSTEM
Alternative Dispute Redressal System (ADRS) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. ADR basically is an alternative to a formal court hearing or litigation. It is a collective term for the ways that parties can settle disputes, with (or without) the help of a third party. ADR are ways and methods of resolving disputes outside the judicial process (formal litigation – court).
Alternative dispute resolution in India is not new and it was in existence even under the previous Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted to accommodate the harmonisation mandates of UNCITRAL Model. To streamline the Indian legal system the traditional civil law known as Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC) 1908 has also been amended and section 89 has been introduced. Section 89 (1) of CPC provides an option for the settlement of disputes outside the court. It provides that where it appears to the court that there exist elements, which may be acceptable to the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial settlement.
Due to extremely slow judicial process, there has been a big thrust on Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms in India. While Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fairly standard western approach towards ADR, the Lok Adalat system constituted under National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 is a uniquely Indian approach.
The Term Paper on Political Parties Party Federalist American
Political Parties INTRODUCTION Political party is defined as A group of office holders, candidates, activist, and voters who identify with a group label and seek to elect to public office individuals who run under that label. (O Connor 296) When referring to political parties George Washington, the first president of the United States, described it as the fury of political parties. In fact, George ...
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Part I of this act formalizes the process of Arbitration and Part III formalizes the process of Conciliation. (Part II is about Enforcement of Foreign Awards under New York and Geneva Conventions.)
Arbitration
The process of arbitration can start only if there exists a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties prior to the emergence of the dispute. As per Section 7, such an agreement must be in writing. The contract regarding which the dispute exists, must either contain an arbitration clause or must refer to a separate document signed by the parties containing the arbitration agreement. The existence of an arbitration agreement can also be inferred by written correspondence such as letters, talex, or telegrams which provide a record of the agreement. An exchange of statement of claim and defence in which existence of an arbitration agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by other is also considered as valid written arbitration agreement.
Any party to the dispute can start the process of appointing arbitrator and if the other party does not cooperate, the party can approach the office of Chief Justice for appointment of an arbitrator. There are only two grounds upon which a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator – reasonable doubt in the impartiality of the arbitrator and the lack of proper qualification of the arbitrator as required by the arbitration agreement. A sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators so appointed constitute the Arbitration Tribunal.
Except for some interim measures, there is very little scope for judicial intervention in the arbitration process. The arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction over its own jurisdiction. Thus, if a party wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal, it can do so only before the tribunal itself. If the tribunal rejects the request, there is little the party can do except to approach a court after the tribunal makes an award. Section 34 provides certain grounds upon which a party can appeal to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for setting aside the award.
The Essay on Interests Group Groups Party Parties
Identification with emotionally charged symbols or words. Example: "YUP... Ping" a free concert for the youth, organized by youth sectors, led by the Young Progressive Leadership Distortion by Selection Example: The expos'e about Jose Pidal pertaining to First Gentleman Mike Arroyo Distraction Example: Failed coup " de tat of Young Junior officers in Oakwood in Makati Use of Rumor Example: the ...
Once the period for filing an appeal for setting aside an award is over, or if such an appeal is rejected, the award is binding on the parties and is considered as a decree of the court.
Conciliation
Conciliation is a less formal form of arbitration. This process does not require an existence of any prior agreement. Any party can request the other party to appoint a conciliator. One conciliator is preferred but two or three are also allowed. In case of multiple conciliators, all must act jointly. If a party rejects an offer to conciliate, there can be no conciliation.
Parties may submit statements to the conciliator describing the general nature of the dispute and the points at issue. Each party sends a copy of the statement to the other. The conciliator may request further details, may ask to meet the parties, or communicate with the parties orally or in writing. Parties may even submit suggestions for the settlement of the dispute to the conciliator.
When it appears to the conciliator that elements of settlement exist, he may draw up the terms of settlement and send it to the parties for their acceptance. If both the parties sign the settlement document, it shall be final and binding on both.
Note that in USA, this process is similar to Mediation. However, in India, Mediation is different from Conciliation and is a completely informal type of ADR mechanism.
Lok Adalat
It roughly means “people’s court”. India has had a long history of resolving disputes through the mediation of village elders. The system of Lok Adalats is an improvement on that and is based on Gandhian principles. This is a non-adversarial system, where by mock courts (called Lok Adalats) are held by the State Authority, District Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Legal Services Committee, or Taluk Legal Services Committee, periodically for exercising such jurisdiction as they thinks fit. These are usually presided by retired judge, social activists, or members of legal profession. It does not have jurisdiction on matters related to non-compoundable offences.
There is no court fee and no rigid procedural requirement (i.e. no need to follow process given by Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act), which makes the process very fast. Parties can directly interact with the judge, which is not possible in regular courts.
Cases that are pending in regular courts can be transferred to a Lok Adalat if both the parties agree. A case can also be transferred to a Lok Adalat if one party applies to the court and the court sees some chance of settlement after giving an opportunity of being heard to the other party.
The focus in Lok Adalats is on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the matter goes back to the court. However, if a compromise is reached, an award is made and is binding on the parties. It is enforced as a decree of a civil court. An important aspect is that the award is final and cannot be appealed, not even under Article 226 because it is a judgement by consent.
All proceedings of a Lok Adalat are deemed to be judicial proceedings and every Lok Adalat is deemed to be a Civil Court.
PROBLEMS IN IMPLIMENTATION
The poor budgetary support to the judiciary has been alluded to as one of the reasons for non-implementation of judicial reforms. It is said that India spends just 0.2 percent of the gross national product on judiciary. According to the first National Judicial Pay Commission, all states but one have been providing less than 1% of their respective budgets for subordinate judiciary which is afflicted with huge pendency.
Other major factors include neglect in improving judicial infrastructure over the past decades, inordinate delays in filling up vacancies of judges and very low population-to-judge ratio that require immediate attention to improve the performance of judiciary.
The 120th Law Commission Report had pointed out that India’s population-to-judge ratio is one of the lowest in the world with only 10 judges for every million of its population as compared to about 150 judges for the same number in the United States and Britain. According to the ’All India Judges’ Association’, the Supreme Court had directed the government to increase the judge strength to 50 judges per 10 lakh population by 2007 in a phased manner, which has mot been fulfilled so far.
Even for filling up of vacancies of approved strength of judges much needs to be done. It is observed that 25 percent of the judge positions remain vacant due to procedural delays. The sanctioned strength of judges of the High Courts was 886 and working strength was 608 as on 6th January 2009 leaving 278 vacancies. Similarly, with 11,767 working strength of Subordinate Judges there were 2710 vacancies on March 1, 2007. The trend in the lower courts is also similar to upper level courts which highlights it as a problem existing in the Indian Judicial System. There has been absolutely no or very slow efforts taken to fill the judges vacancies or to reduce the number of cases existing in the Judicial System.
Over the years several benches of the Supreme Court, eminent lawyers and judges, various legal associations/ organizations and NGOs have identified problems in the Judicial System and called for addressing them speedily. Yet, the effective implementation of many such recommendations is still pending. According to one of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2001) almost 50% of the reports of the Law Commissions awaited implementation.