Legal Reforms the Country Needs Urgently

India has a pendency of 30 million cases. Everyone talks about it and everyone keeps mouthing the cliché 'Justice delayed is justice denied'. Hardly anyone goes beyond this remark accompanied by some noises that may sound appropriate. Almost no one suggests any remedy. I am not a legal expert. But I suppose the legal experts are the real reason why there can not be any reforms. I would like to touch upon only the concerns of people and what I think might benefit the country and the public, huge amount of national time that eats into our productivity and tons of money that are lost on the non-dispensation of justice.

The country gave up the system of Jury and speedy justice. At one time there were also Honorary Magistrates that no longer exist. I wonder whether the judiciary should think of re-introducing these systems at low cost. I am sure the legal experts have a huge number of reasons to argue against the system that may range from the inexperience in the art or the science of 'Judgement' to the clear possibility of corruption and partisan behaviour. The question is whether is it not an honest truth that these maladies afflict the jurisprudence in the form we practice it now as well. In the present system there is also a great deal of impunity implied in the appointments of theses civil servants which may make them less accountable. In the old system and the American model this impunity may be less. Removal of the honorary judges and Jury may be a lot easier. I am not sure Honour is a highly cherished value in our system.

In the appointment of judges we should institute greater transparency. There should be greater accountability. The performance of the Judges must be assessed by harshest of standards because these men of law wield huge power over the fates of the people. Their ability to take decisions, their analytical capability, honesty, value system etc. must be checked thoroughly before inducting them into judiciary. For this rigorous psychological tests including aptitude and personality tests must be instituted. Only the best of the men should be entrusted with people's fates and often, their careers and even lives. I doubt most judges will pass these tests. Correspondingly the punishments for the erring judges should also be harsher as no one can fathom the damage they may have caused to hundreds of people through their ineptness or sheer malpractice.

For crimes against the nation the legal process should be made faster and straight forward. What proof and evidence does the nation need against say, Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab? Hours of television feeds, openly conducted attacks and arrests from the scenes of commitment of these heinous crimes demand further proof? Are we not out of our minds to be wasting the nation's money and time on extended trials that may merely give greater publicity to the criminals and make the state seem soft. The criminals may even become, over time, heroes or role models for many youngsters. What are we hoping to achieve? What justice can we dispense through this waste of time? What will change? What is not known and public knowledge? And, if we must maintain the pretence of a just society is one single hearing and summary trial not enough? Will their repeated exposure not help feed religious fanaticism of weak minded amongst certain communities and create more of the Afzal Gurus and the Kasabs, even from within the country. This is one reform that we need yesterday!

Another reform we need very badly is the system of appeals. I think this would be the most important one and will be the only solution to the ever increasing queue of cases pending in India courts, now exceeding 30 million. My idea is that in the cases decided by the lower courts, conciliation courts etc. the right to appeal should be limited. It should not be that a party loses a case and loses or wins in the next court and loses again and so on and the feuding parties may go on fighting for the whole life and even into next generations.

Their should be fast track courts with the number of dates being given limited to say 5, so that the parties are forced to attend the hearings and not just keep sending their excuses or advocates to ask for fresh dates. The time within which these hearings would be held should also be limited to say six to nine months.

The judges prolonging the decisions and leaving the pendency during their tenure should be assessed for performance on the basis of these failures.

They should not be allowed to forward or recommend the cases to higher courts as far as possible. There should be admitted no representation in a higher court unless there is additional and substantive information or evidence and not just the twists and interpretations of laws. Let us say such a chance should be limited just to one court and the next higher, and then it should end. In the biggest cases where there may be question of life imprisonment, capital punishment or huge sums of money that may impact national interests only a third appeal should be allowed. But in all cases, and in all courts, there should be a limit on the number of hearings with also a limit on the time within which these hearings must be completed. The judges failing to perform should be demoted or punished in some way as the law may allow.

In order that these methods will be extremely effective the judiciary needs to tighten its own system starting from recruitment through to a judge’s rise to the highest position in the judiciary. The selection should, in addition to including personality and aptitude tests, investigate the persons’ background to ensure to the extent possible their being above board. And then, there should be stringent punishments for the erring judges. As stated earlier, in addition, there should be separate and tougher laws to judge the judges.

The lawyers should be investigated for their connections with judges and their methods as it is often suspected that many work as brokers. This may or may not be true so there should be a close watch on the entire legal system so as to ensure that no one misuses powers, connections, graft etc. to scuttle the process of justice and effectively have the justice denied to hapless seekers of it.