Prashant Reddy T & Chitrakshi Jain’s ‘Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India’s District Courts’ offers a recipe for justice

The co-authors introduce the book with a dialogue from the Hindi movie ‘Damini’ in which Sunny Deol plays the role of a young lawyer. As the judge gives him another date, he shouts in anger: “Tareekh pe tareekh, tareekh pe tareekh milti gayi, My Lord, par insaaf nahi mila.” (We only get adjournments from the court, no justice ever). This captures the Indian judicial system at the district level most illustratively. The problem is of numbers. The problem is acute. In spite of all efforts, it persists. The authors have accepted the challenge and offer meaningful solutions. The book, in fact, provides a good recipe.

It is high time the law institutions introduced a course to nurture judicial minds — having the judicial temperament, attitude; the listening, absorbing and retaining capacity-building. From knowing the law to its application to different factual situations.

The young students have to decide whether they have the required judicial aptitude or not. The authors strongly feel that they are too young to be judicial officers deciding cases, and should have three years’ exposure at the Bar before being eligible to take the judicial service exam. This is a moot point. Experience shows that more number of girls get selected than boys. Even when they join the Bar, many are not serious regarding the legal profession and seldom go to courts. They prepare for the exam. Of those who are regular with court work, some develop a keen interest and do well, preferring to continue in the profession. It is largely those not successful who come to the judicial service. The whole objective is defeated. The purpose is to catch them young, with the right kind of aptitude and attitude.

We have the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal since 2005. We also have state judicial academies attached to each high court. The Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court, has conducted a study of curriculum and learning methodology in the academies, resulting in a paper: ‘Rethinking Judicial Education’.

The whole effort is to make training an effective tool to shape judges. There are two components: training in the academies and in courts. Moreover, the classrooms are to be converted into courtrooms. Ultimately, the courtrooms are the true laboratories for nurturing judicial skills.

The Epilogue says — and quite correctly — that getting the district judiciary functioning effectively and efficiently is necessary to restore faith in the rule of law. It has been suggested that Parliament, in furtherance of the apex court’s call for ‘open government’, enact a law requiring that all administrative and disciplinary committees of the high courts publish the transcripts of their meetings. As also the annual report laying out plans to tackle pendency. This will bring in a more ‘careful’ and ‘responsible’ approach in making administrative decisions.

The book advocates ‘decisional independence of the district judiciary’ by providing ‘complete immunity’ from being investigated for judgments. Of course, with a caveat: unless there is concrete proof of bribery or other forms of misconduct. This would help in eliminating fear from the minds of district judges and judicial officers. The possibility of error of judgment can’t be ruled out. That needs to be taken care of at the initial and appellate stage. There is a need for ‘fearless’ judges.

The authors suggest that Parliament should set up a commission to receive and process complaints against the district judiciary. I suggest having a Judicial Ombudsman-in-Aid of the district judiciary to not only monitor the complaints, but to equally look at judges’ grievances.

This book throws up many challenges. No waiting anymore, Parliament must come forward, the sooner the better.

— The reviewer is former director, NJA & CJA