Jus Spake 6

In house Audit:

        As an aftermath to the Anna Hazare experience it is time every institution did its in house stock check. That the Parliament has been found wanting is quiet clear.  Our Law makers may have learnt their lessons.  The Executive suffers from a power syndrome that transforms into unmatched humility once in five years. One judge once commented that one good social reason for keeping the judiciary away from the main stream is that they have no accounting system in place.  A couple of attempts at impeachment in the long history could mean a shockingly high integrity rate or could mean that the system is manned by persons of very high integrity.  We are free to draw our conclusions.

        Contextually thought it necessary to take an in house audit from people who work in the system.  Are they willing to give it a 10 on 10?

        Senior counsel C. Kodandaram was extremely critical about the problem of delays in the system.  While a suit takes three years , an appeal in the High Court takes a decade! He exclaimed.  The judiciary is meant to send a clear signal to the citizen that it is there to guard him against the state.  Some where today the day to day activity is destroying this confidence.  It may still be better than the other institutions.  That is a poor compare.  Listing other system deficiencies, he points out how despite the local rule requirement that papers be served on the Government pleaders the court extend time and some times patiently solicits details of defence from the government and its agencies. Dealing with the bail Vs jail conflict he says it is indeed unfortunate courts across the board have forgotten this cardinal principle and people are being put in jail as a matter of course.  He lamented at the lack of sensitivity in dealing with the crucial issue of personal liberty and how a mere FIR is enough to arrest a person and bring down his reputation. IN the tumultuous ship we journey, bail is not a brig. He admits that it is the best institution going “ but can be much much better” he adds.

He advocates a greater use of technology as a solution to in house irregularities .  He advocates a more pro active judicial role .  “The system needs to be protected.  The more informed have an unwritten duty to keep it well tuned.  We would be failing in our duty if we do not”.

He cautioned against too much of discretion.  Every system must have a regulated form. “The license to internal regulation has often introduced a high element of unpredictability and this is not a healthy sign.  The citizen and in the instant case the constant user- namely the advocate needs to be familiar and predictability is a guarantee against misuse. Lawyers find it difficult to deal with an unpredictable system, where each judge holds his own court literally .  Discretion to grant even permission to take up a case is so dependent on the will of the judge.  There is a thin dividing line between discretion and discrimination, Kodandaram says without mincing words.

        Yet another aspect of concern for the senior lawyer is the administrative bias towards disposal .  “The disposal mania” he dubs it and cautions that this could be counter productive.  He says that the growing pendency of cases is no reason to rush through the justice mechanism. It can be counter productive.   He continues even you cannot in a single article spell it all out.  Conceded. So read on, next time …….