Long wait for justice

Saurabh Malik in Chandigarh

Dr Daljatam Singh has been waiting for almost a decade now for justice to surface from under the heaps of judicial files stacked in some remote corner of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. For him and so many other petitioner-members of the Haryana Civil Dental Surgeons’ Association, post-retirement future has been bogged down by the weight of pendency. 

Two of the doctors have died during the pendency of the civil writ petition filed against the State of Haryana way back in 2009. The others are alive to the reality that old cases keep getting older. And that justice often comes when it has lost its meaning. 

Their case, seeking parity in pay with medical officers, is one of the 3,61,025 cases pending for decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The pendency is up by nearly 92,000 compared to 2011, and approximately 4,400 since last year. No less than 2,80,976 pending cases are more than a year old.

Dr Jitendra Daterwal, one of the association members, says, the petitioners in CWP 17283 of 2009 have virtually turned into pleaders. They have been imploring almost everyone for their case to be heard. Dr Daterwal says the matter was admitted in 2010 to be heard within a year. But the orders were not complied with.

Notice of motion: The procedure 

Each day, the HC hears anywhere between 10 and 30 new cases listed as “urgent”. The Bench, after preliminary hearing, issues notice of motion to the respondents in case it takes cognisance of the matter. The notices often remain unserved and have to be issued again. Then the other side takes its own time to file a reply. The actual hearing only starts after the completion of the entire process. The unproductive procedure takes nearly two hours of the court’s time daily, leaving little time for the Bench to hear arguments in the pending cases. In the absence of a bar on the time permitted to a lawyer to argue a matter, a single case can eat up the court’s remaining time, resulting in the other cases getting adjourned. The High Court has already started giving dates for April and May.

Institution and disposal

One of the reasons for the backlog is the institution of more new cases than those disposed of. In fact, the number of cases being filed before the High Court has been rising at a steady pace. The filing increased from 1,12,730 cases in 2011 to 1,35,191 in 2017. The disposal, on the other hand, has been more or less static. From 1,01,978 in 2011, it went up to 1,14,799 in 2014 and 1,19,968 in 2015. It declined to 1,14,486 in 2016 before falling down to 1,05,966 in 2017. For the first time in 2018, the disposal was 11,881 against the 10,463 cases filed. 

A reason for the enhanced disposal is, perhaps, the High Court’s obvious display of zero tolerance towards frivolous petitions filed in public interest or otherwise, and non-entertainment of appeals filed after undue delay by the state and other appellants.

Judicial discipline 

The High Court has enjoyed a tradition of judicial punctuality. But some judges sit late in the mornings, a few others take a long unscheduled coffee break and some others extend the lunch break. A few others rise before the court time. Some judges believe in doing their homework well. Having read the cases beforehand, they save much time on urgent cases. The same is not the case will all the Benches. 

Litigation policy

Non-implementation of litigation policies by the states, too, has resulted in wasting of the court’s time and public money. Failure to pass on the benefits of a judgment to similarly situated persons has also led to an increase in the filing of petitions. Non-identification of similar cases involving common questions of law for disposal by a single order is another factor.        

The pendency also refuses to come down drastically in the absence of effective implementation of concepts, such as plea bargaining. The tribunals, too, have not made much of a difference as the appeals finally land up before the High Court Bench. 

Action plan: The way out

The High Court already has an “action plan” in place. Chief Justice Krishna Murari believes the scales of justice can be tilted against the problem even with dearth of judges in the higher judiciary. His own way of dealing with cases may hold the key to the problem. Instead of spending less time on more cases, Chief Justice Murari has been spending more time on a few cases. Giving short dates after hearing cases in detail, Chief Justice Murari has been deciding matters expeditiously. Other solutions, perhaps, lie in the analyses of the problems.

---

The problem

As of now, the High Court has 2,728 registered cases pending for the past 20 to 30 years, including 1,568 civil, 143 criminal and 1,017 writs. Last month, the HC could dispose of just five cases, which were more than 10 years old. The problem of pendency has been increasing steadily over the past few years. No less than 2,32,919 cases were awaiting decision in 2010, followed by 2,43,666 in 2011, 2,51,120 in 2012, 2,62,760 in 2013, 2,79,699 in 2014, and 2,88,351 in 2015. The pendency crossed the 3-lakh mark in 2016 with 3,02,313 cases pending followed by 3,31,538 in 2017. The High Court during the period saw six Chief Justices.  The number of cases yet to be listed for final hearing till November last year was 3,35,947. High Court record shows 2,31,239 civil cases were pending before it, while 1,047,08 criminal cases were awaiting the verdict. Regular second appeals have been pending before the High Court since 1976, and civil writ petitions since 1977.  As of now, approximately 50,542 RSAs and 66,221 CWPs are waiting for justice. The situation is a shade better in criminal cases. No less than 40,854 criminal appeals-Single Bench are pending. Till November last year, 13 murder references, where convicts have been sentenced to death, were pending. Its number now is around 10 due to expeditious disposal of such cases by a Bench during the past few weeks. Some of the lawyers in the pending cases went on to become High Court judges before retiring upon attaining the age of superannuation. The cases, however, remained undecided.

The effect     

For Noor Aga, justice came a decade too late. Booked in Amritsar on the allegations of flying into India with drugs in a grape carton from Afghanistan, Aga was jailed for 10 years and remained behind bars without parole or bail. The Supreme Court relief came after he had completed his term.

Aga was convicted by the trial court at Amritsar on June 7, 2000. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on June 9, 2006. Setting aside the impugned order in the case of “Noor Aga versus the State of Punjab and another”, the Supreme Court in July, 2008, emphasised on the need for expeditious disposal of such matters by the high courts. 

The Bench asserted: “Before, however, parting with this judgment, we would like to place emphasis on the necessity of disposal of such cases as quickly as possible. The High Courts should be well advised to device ways and means for stopping recurrence of such a case where a person undergoes entire sentence before he gets an opportunity of hearing before this Court”. 

A decade later, the situation remains the same with the new pushing the old virtually into oblivion. Seventeen years after the jail sentence awarded to a husband in a dowry death case was suspended, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the police to take him and his relative in custody to undergo the remaining term.

The order dated December 10 last year, in “CRA-S-1189-SB-2000” and related appeals came 18 years after the duo was convicted and sentenced to seven years by Jalandhar Additional Sessions Judge Court. The victim’s father died during the pendency of the revision petition.

The High Court itself admitted in CWP-3448-1988 “M.L. Zakhmi versus State Bank of Patiala” that delay tends to change the course of the outcome. Disposing of the 24-year-old case revolving around the issue of granting promotion, the High Court said it was too late for justice. Cases like this, the High Court admitted, gave a new life to the cliché “justice delayed is justice denied”. Disposing of the matter, the Bench asserted had it been taken up with alacrity, the case could have “obtained a different dispensation”.

Ramesh Chand Sharma has waited 20 years for the “week” his case would come up for effective hearing. The former Labour Welfare Officer’s plea against termination of his services was admitted on September 30, 1998, with a direction “to be heard in the week commencing January 18, 1999”. Since then, CWP-6937-1998 has moved from one court to another; and passed though the hands of almost 40 Judges. But a decision is yet to come. “My case did come up for hearing, was adjourned, and taken up again, and again. But it was not heard in the sense of being `heard’ completely, and is still pending,” he says.

It is suspected that many of the petitioners are no more to pursue their grievances due to the long pendency of cases. “When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions,” says former Acting Chief Justice Mehtab Singh Gill. 

Causes and solution

The problem of pendency has been a matter of much debate and discussion for long, with the Supreme Court, the high courts and the Arrears Committee of the SC expressing concern. Some of the most obvious reasons are increase in the levels of awareness regarding rights. New mechanisms, such as PILs and new rights, such as the RTI, too much litigation from the government side, outdated laws or indistinct drafting of laws and even new laws have added to the workload. But the problems largely lie elsewhere.

Shortage of Judges 

The High Court as of now has 53 judges against the sanctioned strength of 85. For more than a year-and-a-half, there were hardly any elevations following the controversy over the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. 

Unwarranted delays      

Hearings often end in adjournments in the absence of clear instructions from the official respondents and even the petitioners. The counsels in such cases find themselves unable to respond to the court queries, The state governments have, more than once, been pulled up by the High Court for not deputing officers and other persons well conversant with the facts of the case, resulting in adjournments. The delay also suits a party at times, particularly when the stay order is in its favour. A party may also want a case to be delayed till the judges’ roster is changed when it senses an adverse order from the Bench. The governments habitually tend to delay the implementation of orders till notices are issued on petitions seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. The High Court’s own system of disposing of petitions with directions to the respondents to decide representations has boomeranged, resulting in multiplicity of litigation. Representations are not decided initially, leading to second round of litigation, which are frequently rejected, ending in a third round.

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Pending cases
1,60,222 Civil cases 
1,29,665 Criminal cases
71,138 Writ cases
3,61,025 Total cases
1,31,195 Civil cases more than a year old
96,503 Criminal cases more than a year old
53,278 Writ cases more than a year old 
2,80,976 Total cases more than a year old