Demand for online Grievance Reddressal Facility on courts/ Judiciary:
Functioning of Courts :
# are the courts serving for public or Advocates?
Both the courts and counsels are being paid by the public but there are mutual adjustments among the courts & counsels, punishing the public for knocking the doors of justice!
Though there are n No. of rules/codes of procedures, nothing comes to rescue the public. The courts are helpless when it comes to take on with advocates for getting adjournments deliberately on flimsy grounds, even repeatedly! The advocates enjoy an unfettered rights over the courts and are equipped with all sorts of codes/procedures for circumventing the judicial process in conducting the court proceedings on their terms and thereby ultimately delaying the delivery of justice.
#This creates the sentiment, that courts are only for dragging on a matter and to deal with criminals and not for the right -loyal common man! who is left with two choices either to accept the cumbersome judicial system or succumb to the
pressure/inducements of the counsel's whims for out-of court settlements.
Why can't the court permit the party to make his/her submissions directly on such instances without mandatory revoking of the vakalat? Why should there be the hard-n-fast rule:- either by the advocate or by the party-in person? because whenever his advocate is busy or for simple statements of facts, the party can make direct submissions to the court. The advocates can argue the case as per the various rules /codes of the Law.
Even for obtaining a court document pertaining to his/her suit, the section offices generally not permitting the litigant to directly apply for the document without the counsel's knowledge.
On the other hand, when it comes to raise some basic grievance like deliberate/ continuous adjournments, recording his/her presence on the hearing day, etc. over the concerned court, there's no way the litigants can reach-out the judicial authority other than the standard route of TAPAL sec. - registry- Section office- concerned Court Officer.
And, it's of anybody's (general)Knowledge , that how the complainant / litigant is coerced by his/her Advocate , before the complaint itself reaches it's destination desk! more
# are the courts serving for public or Advocates?
Both the courts and counsels are being paid by the public but there are mutual adjustments among the courts & counsels, punishing the public for knocking the doors of justice!
Though there are n No. of rules/codes of procedures, nothing comes to rescue the public. The courts are helpless when it comes to take on with advocates for getting adjournments deliberately on flimsy grounds, even repeatedly! The advocates enjoy an unfettered rights over the courts and are equipped with all sorts of codes/procedures for circumventing the judicial process in conducting the court proceedings on their terms and thereby ultimately delaying the delivery of justice.
#This creates the sentiment, that courts are only for dragging on a matter and to deal with criminals and not for the right -loyal common man! who is left with two choices either to accept the cumbersome judicial system or succumb to the
pressure/inducements of the counsel's whims for out-of court settlements.
Why can't the court permit the party to make his/her submissions directly on such instances without mandatory revoking of the vakalat? Why should there be the hard-n-fast rule:- either by the advocate or by the party-in person? because whenever his advocate is busy or for simple statements of facts, the party can make direct submissions to the court. The advocates can argue the case as per the various rules /codes of the Law.
Even for obtaining a court document pertaining to his/her suit, the section offices generally not permitting the litigant to directly apply for the document without the counsel's knowledge.
On the other hand, when it comes to raise some basic grievance like deliberate/ continuous adjournments, recording his/her presence on the hearing day, etc. over the concerned court, there's no way the litigants can reach-out the judicial authority other than the standard route of TAPAL sec. - registry- Section office- concerned Court Officer.
And, it's of anybody's (general)Knowledge , that how the complainant / litigant is coerced by his/her Advocate , before the complaint itself reaches it's destination desk! more
Viewed by 2253
View all 55 comments Below 55 comments
Functioning of (Trial) Courts Is the order of the Hon’ble HC should be seen in "The Letter & Spirit" or just as letters of the sentence? In matters where there's a Direction by HC to conduct day-to-day trail and dispose of the matter under a specific time frame, how can the matter be adjourned to the next day by the Addnl. Judge without having any objective hearing of either the trial or the logical reason for seeking adjournment by the parties? In a situation where the trail is delayed for 3 consecutive days without any meaningful hearings, can't the Judge proceed against the erring Party for willful default and decide on the next step in the given Case for speedy disposal of the matter as per the HC directions? If the Court simply adjourns the case for the next day, just for the sake of fulfilling the obligations of daily trials (namesake), is it not an in-justice to the litigants /misleading the HC? In the broader perspective of Justice, is it not a reflection on the Judiciary's Health?! Moreover, in the specific case, if all these delay tactics being consciously conducted by the Principal Defendants of the suit before the passive Court, the Plaintiff/Petitioner will have any confidence over the Presiding officer of the Court on chances of getting Justice? Is this not be seen as a measure of efficiency of the Judge in conducting the Court "effectively"? Then, in such situations is it not advisable that, the Plaintiff/Petitioner rises to the occasion and point out the discrepancies of the court by bringing it before the appropriate Judicial Authority for a "just" redress and also in the general interest of the Society. more
Oct 12
BJP govt also does not want to decrease the court cases... they want judiciary to crumble & collapse so that it can eat the "meat" like a vulture. Think it is time for Supreme court to STOP registration of new cses, excepting those relating to education. The pressure to be brought on the central govt to change the laws & increase the strength of judiciary. A single court case takes 25-40 years to conclude... long live Indian democracy !!! more
Oct 03
I think nobody is serious for reducing pendency of cases in courts.Govt,Judges and Advocates are equally responsible for this.This needs a self introspection by all concerned.As famous proverb says "Justice delayed is Justice denied" more
Oct 03
Our laws and executives and judges are still having the same mindset to serve the CROWN. This must change and be Public oriented or Public First. I am submitting following possible actions, for your serious consideration, that are expected to result in moving towards goal of minimal litigations and justice to common man: (i) sanction & appoint more good quality Judges, (ii) operate Courts in two shifts per day, seven days a week and 350 days in a year- necessary staffing be done accordingly, justice cannot be on leave except perhaps on 26th January, 15th August and 2nd October, (iii) use maximum existing infrastructure- buildings etc. (iv) Judge must deliver minimum X no. judgments in a month (X may be equal to I do not know- may be assessed by study and current performance of most efficient Judge), - (v) judgment reversed in higher court should be treated as -3, and deducted from the number of judgments delivered during the month; Salary payment should be by results. (vi) Investigating official and public prosecutor must report to common head S.P./D.S.P., (viii) performance of Investigating official and public prosecutor must be assessed together- this is expected to improve co-operation between two and improve % of convictions & positive results, (ix) all govt. employees- including judges have a protection clause in every law that they cannot be prosecuted in any Court of law unless it can be shown that they have acted or omitted to act with malafied intention. This section from all laws should be deleted to make them act more responsibly and be accountable to people. Today you have no remedy against wrong acts / omissions of Talathi/ Patwari, Tahasildar, S.D.O., collector and their counterparts/equal in other departments. You may appeal to higher level and get delayed justice but nothing happens to wrong doer, ( x) all investigations be recorded as video audio recording at the site in presence of the trial court judge- or appellate court up to District Court, he being a part of record in video, (xi) The Judge must not restrict himself to letters of the case only. His jurisdiction MUST cover determining if any witness has deposed falsely and in that case pronounce punishment for the same in his judgment and not wait for fresh case etc. This will reduce substantially false witnesses and witnesses becoming hostile, (xii) To reduce the burden of cases introduced by litigants just to harass other party it is necessary to penalize losing litigant with cost of the case to winning side and the govt. Persons below poverty line should pay 10 to20% of the cost but must not be totally exempted. This will reduce unnecessary litigations and also reduce burden on exchequer, (xiii) If any litigant seeks adjournment on a date he must make an application and deposit money to cover cost to other litigant/s and government before being allowed new date. Also if judge/magistrate fails to keep the date, government should compensate all the litigants appropriately depending on their losses, (xiii) For rural areas subordinate courts tahasildar and S.D.O.’s courts must be mobile. These courts should set up a temporary court in the office of grampanchayat or talathi office etc. and call nearby village litigants and witnesses to that place. It is possible for the magistrate/judge to visit the site of dispute, take photographs, record audio/video statements and decide the cases more responsibly in shortest possible time. If the expense for these steps are considered too high (which I consider is not – compared to man days lost in present process) it is suggested that at least one district in each state is taken up initially as experimental ground and results monitored/analysed on a quarterly basis. At the end of one year I expect a reduction of about 50% in inflow of cases. (Ivx) Every Judge, up to the lowest one (Naib Tahasildar) MUST deliver a speaking judgment. They avoid giving reasoning/speaking judgment when they want to oblige wrong party. Not giving speaking judgment should be punishable with R.I. It may be observed that very little has changed in 10 years. People want a positive change in this matter for better. People in rural area, including Naxal area, shall have great confidence in Government and lawlessness shall reduce in rural region. RYK more
Oct 02
It's nt opening so I leave it at this. Aju Mukhopadhyay, Poet, Critic and Author On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:16 AM VENKAT MITRA wrote: > more
Oct 02
