Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event. It has purported an unimagined threat to every activity of the nation and to every sector of the economy. It has rendered each one of us helpless and clueless and has slowed down the entire nation. It has even impacted the justice-delivering mechanism. The courts which already used to be burdened with a huge backlog of cases are now expected to give preference to the most important cases. In 2018, a survey was conducted by the Law Ministry wherein it was revealed that there are 19 judges per ten lakh people and it is pertinent to note that this ratio has further declined during the social distancing and virtual hearing norms that were adopted during the pandemic.
Indeed, the pandemic has created a state of confusion and disorder in the economy. The very idea of “access to justice” has been questioned in a way, it has never before. The pandemic has put to test the efficacy of courts as protectors of fundamental rights. The courts, however, have tried their best to positively deal with the situation and have admirably responded by resorting to technology and virtual setup so that delivery of justice is not hampered. Nonetheless, it would not be wrong to say that access to justice has not been hampered; because the quick response of the courts in developing e-courts and adopting technology was only temporary. This is because the online setup is even more comforting and relieving and an unstable internet connection is always a good excuse.
The paucity of time along with connectivity issues is a deadly combination. Already, we have lakhs of cases pending and the quorum required to resolve these disputes is never appointed to its full capacity. Further, the victim and the accused are hardly present in these hearings and they never know what fate they have been turned to.
Reasons of Delay
There are basically two reasons which contribute to the problem: the issue of huge backlog and the issue of delay in delivering the judgment. Already, the judicial system is burdened with a huge backlog and the increasing delay in giving the final judgment or the practice of withholding the judgment leads to further problems.
Surveys suggest that more than sixty percent people believe that delay in most of the cases is due to not passing the orders by the judges. Indeed, this may not be fully correct to attribute all the delays to the judge as lawyer and other parties are also involved in the procedure. However, in cases when the matter has already been heard and both parties have presented their arguments, and if in that case the judge “reserves judgment”- to conduct research, analyze arguments, etc. the judge may be held fully responsible for the delay caused.
Further, the lack of quorum and required members for hearing the case is another problem that delays the judgment. For instance, it is necessary for the consumer district forums to have three members (a president and two other members). However, most of the districts do not have the required members.
Technical difficulties have also contributed to this haplessness. Poor connectivity, not working of the shared link, echoes, and other disruptions lead to further delay. In fact, the litigant’s lack of confidence in arguing from a remote location is also a major drawback.
Impact of Delayed Justice
The crisis has impacted women at a large scale as there has been an increase in domestic violence and gender-based violence cases. In fact, under “normal” circumstances, for most women access to justice is challenging and bothersome. This pandemic poses even new problems to courts, and adding a gendered perspective to these challenges reveals additional layers of concerns for women’s capacity to access justice securely, swiftly, and effectively.
It also impacts other sections of society like consumers who were sold expired and adulterated products in the guise of appealing offers. The shopkeepers, being completely aware of the fact that it is close to impossible that they would be held liable for the unfair practices adopted are taking full advantage of the situation and are duping the customers.
The mechanism is so slow that in most of the cases, the organizations or the firms which are at dispute are closed by the time the complaints are heard, leaving the customer defenseless.
Constitutional Provisions
Constant warnings and sobering remarks by the Supreme Court judges regarding the pendency of cases makes evident that All is not well with the Indian judiciary. Time-consuming procedures, delays in the trial of cases, and the 19th-century approach need to be modernized. We need to revamp the entire colonial system by comprehensively planning things as the current system may not work for future needs.
All this delay is a clear violation of Article 21 wherein the courts have time and again emphasized the right to speedy justice. A law that does not provide for an expeditious and swift investigation, trial, and conclusion is unfair and unreasonable. It is both in the interest of the society and the accused that a case is terminated as soon as possible. It is in the social interest that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated.
It is the obligation of the State to ensure this right. The very fact that a person is accused of a crime for no fault of his affects his reputation among his colleagues and in society. It becomes all the more serious and graver in case, he is arrested.[1] The man may lose his life, career, and liberty if it is a serious offense.
Under its interpretation of the extent and sweep of Article 21, the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2] held that no one should be deprived of his life and liberty other than the procedure established by law, that too should be ‘fair, reasonable and just, ultimately, setting the stage for the right to a speedy trial. Thus, if a procedure does not ensure a quick trial, it would fall short of Article 21.
Thus, it is a well-settled principle that the Right to a speedy trial is an inalienable right that is applicable not only to the actual proceedings but also to the police investigations. It is not applicable to all categories and is not confined to any particular group. In cases, where this right has been infringed, the court has to consider all the circumstances and ascertain if the right to a speedy trial has been denied in the case at hand. Where it is established that it has been violated, the court after considering the nature of offense may quash the proceedings while ensuring the fact that quashing is not against the interest of justice.
Conclusion
In the era of continuous delays and backlogs, we desperately need a quick redressal mechanism system so that justice may be dispensed quickly and efficiently. So that victims do not suffer further and the innocent accused does not face the wrath of society.
The regulations enlisted in the most revered document i.e., the Constitution should not be flouted further. It is high time that judicial and the justice delivering mechanisms understood the importance of delivering the judgments in time otherwise, the guidelines set by the Apex Court and the Grundnorm are violated prima facie which may even backfire.
Having a huge backlog not only impacts the citizens concerned but even slows down the economy of the nation. Ultimately, procrastination has to come to an end and if there is a need to appoint more officials or provide training to people regarding the use of current technology, it has to be done with utmost priority.
.
[1] A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, 3(1992)1 SCC 225.
[2] Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
All Comments () +