Improving justice delivery system

Very useful and timely recommendation.Needs to be incorporated in our white paper more  

This issue require also ; 1. Implementing & Empowering a Bench of Supreme Court as the enforcing authority of the constitutional articles & laws pertinent with full and absolute power . 2. Amend article 37 to give life for part IV , the directives of Rule in India to make this part as mandatory . 3. Regulate code and candidature of Politicians eliminating those served with Court Summons and Political Party funds for statutory accounting and Audit keeping these both energising and empowering the E.C. to punish and also disqualify those caught with malpractices while on Election campaigns . UNLESS THESE 3 VITAL ISSUES ARE ADDED ATOP , only Judiciary cannot be reformed for ever please . more  

*Suggetion 11:* The harmful effects of delay in delivery of justice need not be highlighted. Take the case of Ms Jayalalitha, the ex- chief minister of Tamil Nadu for example: At the time the judgment was delivered, the people of the State of Tamil Nadu looked upon her as a mass leader who was doing a lot of good to the masses of Tamil Nadu. The people of Tamil Nadu rose as one man to protest the judgment. Imagine the expenditure that went into handling this mass upsurge that happened after the delayed judgment, and all this expenditure comes from the tax-payers’ money. The delay in judgment unfortunately does not in any way affect the justice delivery system at all. Imagine this same judgment had arrived within two years of the filing of the case, there would not have been any incident at all based on the judgment. Not only the delay in the justice delivery system affects the people concerned with a case but it affects the tax payers’ pocket as well, and even non-tax payers. It sends a message to the people of India not to depend on the justice delivery system any more. It sends the message that the justice delivery system in India is probably the most archaic, ineffective system in the county, that can be maneuvered by any one who has the power, financial or otherwise, to delay justice and thus deny justice. In a democracy, the justice delivery system should be one of the very few pillars, but alas where is it today, thanks just to the delay involved! So the suggestion is: To make the authorities initiate a serious attempt to revamp and improve the justice delivery system so that justice is delivered within a reasonable time-frame, the judiciary should follow what the IT department is following. The IT takes accountability for the delayed processing of returns and if it is delayed beyond a certain period, and if there is refund involved, the IT department pays to the taxpayer an attractive interest on the outstanding for the delayed period. Similarly the justice delivery system – say the law ministry and the judiciary - should own up the responsibility for delay in the delivery of justice to people of this country at least partially and pay up half the interest amount payable to the aggrieved party in the case of civil suits involving financial transactions and half the notional loss in the case of other suits. This amount is an additional compensation to the aggrieved party for the delay by the law-enforcing authority and the judicial system in the country and is a token punishment for delay beyond a specified period. This amount paid by the judiciary should come from the budgetary allocation to the judicial system, making a dent in their other expenditure. Of course the erring party would pay the full interest as well. Alternatively the punishment that is given to the party as a result of delayed judgment should be reduced to half of the punishment in the judgment, in criminal cases and in cases where the financial factor cannot be worked out. There ought to be a price paid by the country as a whole for the unpardonable delay in the delivery of justice in this country. With warm regards, Muthuswamy N Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for sampling and purchase: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your Life's Decisions: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Quest Systems wrote: > *Suggestion 10: * > > > > There is a period specified for appealing against a judgment to the higher > courts. If an appeal to the higher court is not filed within the stipulated > time, there is a provision for condonment of this delay in appealing in > certain deserving cases. First of all this provision implies that the > justice delivery system is not particular about and has scant regard for > the time taken for the delivery of justice. What on earth can delay just > the filing of an appeal against a judgment in today’s world, where any > additional information required can be obtained in a flippy? > > > > This provision for appeal for condonment of delay is being increasingly > used, rather misused, to delay the process of timely delivery of justice, > particularly by not the aggrieved party but the party trying to get benefit > or wreak a vengeance on the aggrieved party. The Supreme court has set a > precedent recently by disallowing the condonment of delay even in cases > where the Government departments had appealed for condonment of delay on > their part, which cited the number of departments through which they have > to go through the same. > > > > There is one more associated problem with this: Condoning the delay is a > soft option for all courts and judges and so most of the delays in > appealing later than the due date, provide a path of least resistance for > all courts and judges and the delay gets condoned. If there is any judge > who can decide whether or not there is justifiable reason to condone the > delay it is the judge of the court that passed the first judgment. Again > the judge in the appellate court that hears the appeal for condonment of > delay, thinks that his judgment does not really matter as much as it can be > appealed against in the higher courts. So they condone the delay without > spending time on such cases and close a case and score a point in the > number of completed cases to their credit! > > > > What is more, the judgment in the condonment of delay cases, like all > others, can also be appealed to the higher courts. This adds to the number > and duration of processing of each case for which one party files an appeal > for condonment of delay, even in cases where the latter has no justifiable > reason for delay The genuinely aggrieved party has no option, when the > delay is condoned, except to appeal to the higher court for this case of > delay in appeal also. This additional waiting time is completely avoidable > by providing for appeal against the judgment in condonment of delay to only > one court and not right up to the Supreme court as it is prevalent now.. > > > > As it stands today one can take the appeal against the judgment of > condonment of delay cases, in steps to the highest court in the country > namely the Supreme Court. When you take it up to Supreme court, the Supreme > court permits the two advocates to argue in its first hearing, but at its > discretion only. So there may not be any argument by either party even in > the first hearing. But if the genuinely aggrieved party feels that it has > not got justice and files a review petition in the Supreme Court, there is > a provision that the Supreme Court *should not* call the two advocates > but give a judgment without any hearing, just by reading the files of the > case! This is strange as the review petition by the Supreme court is more > critical than the first hearing by the Supreme Court. > > > > If the Supreme court, in its review petition condones the delay in > appealing against the judgment by the lower court, the case goes back to > the lower court that delivered the firat judgment and the cycle starts all > over again, as though it is the first hearing of the case – after 25 years > of hearing! > > With warm regards, > > Muthuswamy N > > Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying > complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* > Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for > sampling and purchase: > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. > > Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your > Life's Decisions: > > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 > > For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Quest Systems > wrote: > >> Pareto’s law is applicable to number of cases pending in courts too. >> Shortly put, this means that there will be several cases that may not need >> long times for hearing and giving justice and only a few cases needing >> longer time for disposal. In other words, some 5% of the pending cases only >> may need long time to close, another 15% may need medium time spans to >> close and 80% of cases may need very short times to dispose off. This is an >> inviolable law of distribution of anything including pending cases and >> delivery of justice. >> >> >> >> That being the case, the first step is for the courts to segregate the >> total number of pending cases in the country as a whole, to long time (L), >> medium time (M) and short time (S) consuming cases. To do this, certain >> parameters have to be evolved and then applied to all pending cases in the >> country. The parameter should *not* include the time ( years and months >> ) for which the case is pending but should simply be the critical legal >> aspect involved – the prima facie legal maintainability- of the case. A >> committee of one judge or three judges, and the two advocates of the case >> should go into the legal merit of a case and establish the code mentioned >> above namely L, M, and S. The two parties involved may be present in this >> meeting, in addition to their advocates. >> >> >> >> Some people may feel that this is not right but remember we are only >> classifying the cases as L,M and S and not delivering judgments as yet. >> >> >> >> In a case, the party initiating the case may be innocent or the party >> defending it. Also the opposite may be true: the party initiating the case >> may be the culprit or the party defending it. The committee of 3 or 5 as >> suggested above should have (as all judges should have) equal respect and >> openness for the initiator of the case or the defendant. Such a committee >> will be able to come out with a decision as to whether there is a case at >> all to be taken up for further investigation, and which of the three >> categories – L, M or S- a case falls within just one sitting of this >> committee. If this is organized in the court room itself, the judge will be >> able to deliver the judgment in the very day of this hearing or at best in >> the very next hearing. I know many lawyers are nodding their head saying NO >> but the case study I am going to present at the end of this discussion will >> be an eye opener for everyone as to how many such cases are pending with no >> legal substance at all, and the suits are there only because one of the two >> parties get vindictive at the other. In this country it has become a >> practice for all people to take revenge against anyone by filing a suit >> against him/her. The justice delivery system in the country is misused by >> several people to deny justice to a party and the root cause for this again >> is the inordinate, non-excusable delay in the justice delivery system. >> >> >> >> One may be surprised to know that one party, after listening to the >> committee, may decide not to pursue the case at all! In the least, this >> meeting will enable the judge to ask the vital few probing questions to be >> asked in subsequent hearings to establish the legality or otherwise of the >> case. >> >> >> >> If the S cases are taken up first as above, there will be a rapid >> disposal of the current pending cases. Remember the S cases are 80% of the >> total cases pending. >> >> >> >> *Suggestion 9: *Follow suggestion 8 for any case that is getting added >> anew i.e., fresh cases coming in today and any day from today in the >> future. This will proactively prevent pointless cases being admitted and >> clogging the already heavily clogged justice delivery system in the country. >> >> >> >> With warm regards, >> >> Muthuswamy N >> >> Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying >> complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* >> Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for >> sampling and purchase: >> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. >> >> Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your >> Life's Decisions: >> >> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 >> >> For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Quest Systems >> wrote: >> >>> *Suggestions for expediting justice without the stigma of justice >>> hurried is justice buried:* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Suggestion 6: *As anything to do with courts take long, even the >>> improvements to the system may take a long time to come. A centipede that >>> is crawling may take a man walking at normal speed as super fast and think >>> such a speed is impossible to achieve by anyone in the world! This >>> perception is already deep in the justice delivery system in India, our >>> country, as can be seen in the statement “justice hurried is justice >>> buried”. The million Rupee question is: what is the definition of hurried >>> justice? Is anything less than quarter of a century ‘hurried’? >>> >>> >>> >>> To mitigate the damage done to the aggrieved party in the meantime, the >>> least the courts could do is to expect execution of the judgment of the >>> lower court, without any further delay and prescribe severe punishment for >>> not complying with the lower court order and executing it. Such a provision >>> will at least deny the enjoyment to the wrong-doer till the final judgment >>> is delivered in all civil cases. This will also drive accountability in >>> judges of the lower court since their judgment has now weight in the sense >>> it will be immediately executed. If the lower court judgments are >>> implemented immediately on expiration of appeal period (what is the need to >>> file an execution suit when there is a provision for appeal against any >>> order?), it would be a far better situation. The total number of cases >>> would come crashing down, as the execution suits, that are equal in number >>> to the suits on which any court delivers any judgment, are no longer >>> required. Of course this has to go with other suggestions in this write-up. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Suggestion 7: Why courts shut down during ‘vacation’?* >>> >>> >>> >>> I had often wondered why courts have a summer vacation. They are not >>> kindergarten schools nor are the advocates or the judges school kids. The >>> entire world industry operates continuously without break but with break >>> for its employees. Why not the court system? This adds enormous delay to >>> the already over-delayed justice delivery system. Why not abolish vacation >>> to courts but continue vacation to all people working in the courts, like >>> in any other industry? Why the courts need vacation, during which the >>> purpose for which they are created comes to naught? >>> >>> >>> >>> More suggestions follow. >>> >>> With warm regards, >>> >>> Muthuswamy N >>> >>> Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying >>> complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* >>> Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for >>> sampling and purchase: >>> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. >>> >>> Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your >>> Life's Decisions: >>> >>> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 >>> >>> For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Csn Sarma >> > wrote: >>> >>>> more  

*Suggestion 10: * There is a period specified for appealing against a judgment to the higher courts. If an appeal to the higher court is not filed within the stipulated time, there is a provision for condonment of this delay in appealing in certain deserving cases. First of all this provision implies that the justice delivery system is not particular about and has scant regard for the time taken for the delivery of justice. What on earth can delay just the filing of an appeal against a judgment in today’s world, where any additional information required can be obtained in a flippy? This provision for appeal for condonment of delay is being increasingly used, rather misused, to delay the process of timely delivery of justice, particularly by not the aggrieved party but the party trying to get benefit or wreak a vengeance on the aggrieved party. The Supreme court has set a precedent recently by disallowing the condonment of delay even in cases where the Government departments had appealed for condonment of delay on their part, which cited the number of departments through which they have to go through the same. There is one more associated problem with this: Condoning the delay is a soft option for all courts and judges and so most of the delays in appealing later than the due date, provide a path of least resistance for all courts and judges and the delay gets condoned. If there is any judge who can decide whether or not there is justifiable reason to condone the delay it is the judge of the court that passed the first judgment. Again the judge in the appellate court that hears the appeal for condonment of delay, thinks that his judgment does not really matter as much as it can be appealed against in the higher courts. So they condone the delay without spending time on such cases and close a case and score a point in the number of completed cases to their credit! What is more, the judgment in the condonment of delay cases, like all others, can also be appealed to the higher courts. This adds to the number and duration of processing of each case for which one party files an appeal for condonment of delay, even in cases where the latter has no justifiable reason for delay The genuinely aggrieved party has no option, when the delay is condoned, except to appeal to the higher court for this case of delay in appeal also. This additional waiting time is completely avoidable by providing for appeal against the judgment in condonment of delay to only one court and not right up to the Supreme court as it is prevalent now.. As it stands today one can take the appeal against the judgment of condonment of delay cases, in steps to the highest court in the country namely the Supreme Court. When you take it up to Supreme court, the Supreme court permits the two advocates to argue in its first hearing, but at its discretion only. So there may not be any argument by either party even in the first hearing. But if the genuinely aggrieved party feels that it has not got justice and files a review petition in the Supreme Court, there is a provision that the Supreme Court *should not* call the two advocates but give a judgment without any hearing, just by reading the files of the case! This is strange as the review petition by the Supreme court is more critical than the first hearing by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme court, in its review petition condones the delay in appealing against the judgment by the lower court, the case goes back to the lower court that delivered the firat judgment and the cycle starts all over again, as though it is the first hearing of the case – after 25 years of hearing! With warm regards, Muthuswamy N Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for sampling and purchase: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your Life's Decisions: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Quest Systems wrote: > Pareto’s law is applicable to number of cases pending in courts too. > Shortly put, this means that there will be several cases that may not need > long times for hearing and giving justice and only a few cases needing > longer time for disposal. In other words, some 5% of the pending cases only > may need long time to close, another 15% may need medium time spans to > close and 80% of cases may need very short times to dispose off. This is an > inviolable law of distribution of anything including pending cases and > delivery of justice. > > > > That being the case, the first step is for the courts to segregate the > total number of pending cases in the country as a whole, to long time (L), > medium time (M) and short time (S) consuming cases. To do this, certain > parameters have to be evolved and then applied to all pending cases in the > country. The parameter should *not* include the time ( years and months ) > for which the case is pending but should simply be the critical legal > aspect involved – the prima facie legal maintainability- of the case. A > committee of one judge or three judges, and the two advocates of the case > should go into the legal merit of a case and establish the code mentioned > above namely L, M, and S. The two parties involved may be present in this > meeting, in addition to their advocates. > > > > Some people may feel that this is not right but remember we are only > classifying the cases as L,M and S and not delivering judgments as yet. > > > > In a case, the party initiating the case may be innocent or the party > defending it. Also the opposite may be true: the party initiating the case > may be the culprit or the party defending it. The committee of 3 or 5 as > suggested above should have (as all judges should have) equal respect and > openness for the initiator of the case or the defendant. Such a committee > will be able to come out with a decision as to whether there is a case at > all to be taken up for further investigation, and which of the three > categories – L, M or S- a case falls within just one sitting of this > committee. If this is organized in the court room itself, the judge will be > able to deliver the judgment in the very day of this hearing or at best in > the very next hearing. I know many lawyers are nodding their head saying NO > but the case study I am going to present at the end of this discussion will > be an eye opener for everyone as to how many such cases are pending with no > legal substance at all, and the suits are there only because one of the two > parties get vindictive at the other. In this country it has become a > practice for all people to take revenge against anyone by filing a suit > against him/her. The justice delivery system in the country is misused by > several people to deny justice to a party and the root cause for this again > is the inordinate, non-excusable delay in the justice delivery system. > > > > One may be surprised to know that one party, after listening to the > committee, may decide not to pursue the case at all! In the least, this > meeting will enable the judge to ask the vital few probing questions to be > asked in subsequent hearings to establish the legality or otherwise of the > case. > > > > If the S cases are taken up first as above, there will be a rapid disposal > of the current pending cases. Remember the S cases are 80% of the total > cases pending. > > > > *Suggestion 9: *Follow suggestion 8 for any case that is getting added > anew i.e., fresh cases coming in today and any day from today in the > future. This will proactively prevent pointless cases being admitted and > clogging the already heavily clogged justice delivery system in the country. > > > > With warm regards, > > Muthuswamy N > > Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying > complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* > Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for > sampling and purchase: > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. > > Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your > Life's Decisions: > > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 > > For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Quest Systems > wrote: > >> *Suggestions for expediting justice without the stigma of justice hurried >> is justice buried:* >> >> >> >> *Suggestion 6: *As anything to do with courts take long, even the >> improvements to the system may take a long time to come. A centipede that >> is crawling may take a man walking at normal speed as super fast and think >> such a speed is impossible to achieve by anyone in the world! This >> perception is already deep in the justice delivery system in India, our >> country, as can be seen in the statement “justice hurried is justice >> buried”. The million Rupee question is: what is the definition of hurried >> justice? Is anything less than quarter of a century ‘hurried’? >> >> >> >> To mitigate the damage done to the aggrieved party in the meantime, the >> least the courts could do is to expect execution of the judgment of the >> lower court, without any further delay and prescribe severe punishment for >> not complying with the lower court order and executing it. Such a provision >> will at least deny the enjoyment to the wrong-doer till the final judgment >> is delivered in all civil cases. This will also drive accountability in >> judges of the lower court since their judgment has now weight in the sense >> it will be immediately executed. If the lower court judgments are >> implemented immediately on expiration of appeal period (what is the need to >> file an execution suit when there is a provision for appeal against any >> order?), it would be a far better situation. The total number of cases >> would come crashing down, as the execution suits, that are equal in number >> to the suits on which any court delivers any judgment, are no longer >> required. Of course this has to go with other suggestions in this write-up. >> >> >> >> *Suggestion 7: Why courts shut down during ‘vacation’?* >> >> >> >> I had often wondered why courts have a summer vacation. They are not >> kindergarten schools nor are the advocates or the judges school kids. The >> entire world industry operates continuously without break but with break >> for its employees. Why not the court system? This adds enormous delay to >> the already over-delayed justice delivery system. Why not abolish vacation >> to courts but continue vacation to all people working in the courts, like >> in any other industry? Why the courts need vacation, during which the >> purpose for which they are created comes to naught? >> >> >> >> More suggestions follow. >> >> With warm regards, >> >> Muthuswamy N >> >> Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying >> complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* >> Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for >> sampling and purchase: >> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. >> >> Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your >> Life's Decisions: >> >> https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 >> >> For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Csn Sarma >> wrote: >> >>> more  

Pareto’s law is applicable to number of cases pending in courts too. Shortly put, this means that there will be several cases that may not need long times for hearing and giving justice and only a few cases needing longer time for disposal. In other words, some 5% of the pending cases only may need long time to close, another 15% may need medium time spans to close and 80% of cases may need very short times to dispose off. This is an inviolable law of distribution of anything including pending cases and delivery of justice. That being the case, the first step is for the courts to segregate the total number of pending cases in the country as a whole, to long time (L), medium time (M) and short time (S) consuming cases. To do this, certain parameters have to be evolved and then applied to all pending cases in the country. The parameter should *not* include the time ( years and months ) for which the case is pending but should simply be the critical legal aspect involved – the prima facie legal maintainability- of the case. A committee of one judge or three judges, and the two advocates of the case should go into the legal merit of a case and establish the code mentioned above namely L, M, and S. The two parties involved may be present in this meeting, in addition to their advocates. Some people may feel that this is not right but remember we are only classifying the cases as L,M and S and not delivering judgments as yet. In a case, the party initiating the case may be innocent or the party defending it. Also the opposite may be true: the party initiating the case may be the culprit or the party defending it. The committee of 3 or 5 as suggested above should have (as all judges should have) equal respect and openness for the initiator of the case or the defendant. Such a committee will be able to come out with a decision as to whether there is a case at all to be taken up for further investigation, and which of the three categories – L, M or S- a case falls within just one sitting of this committee. If this is organized in the court room itself, the judge will be able to deliver the judgment in the very day of this hearing or at best in the very next hearing. I know many lawyers are nodding their head saying NO but the case study I am going to present at the end of this discussion will be an eye opener for everyone as to how many such cases are pending with no legal substance at all, and the suits are there only because one of the two parties get vindictive at the other. In this country it has become a practice for all people to take revenge against anyone by filing a suit against him/her. The justice delivery system in the country is misused by several people to deny justice to a party and the root cause for this again is the inordinate, non-excusable delay in the justice delivery system. One may be surprised to know that one party, after listening to the committee, may decide not to pursue the case at all! In the least, this meeting will enable the judge to ask the vital few probing questions to be asked in subsequent hearings to establish the legality or otherwise of the case. If the S cases are taken up first as above, there will be a rapid disposal of the current pending cases. Remember the S cases are 80% of the total cases pending. *Suggestion 9: *Follow suggestion 8 for any case that is getting added anew i.e., fresh cases coming in today and any day from today in the future. This will proactively prevent pointless cases being admitted and clogging the already heavily clogged justice delivery system in the country. With warm regards, Muthuswamy N Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for sampling and purchase: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your Life's Decisions: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Quest Systems wrote: > *Suggestions for expediting justice without the stigma of justice hurried > is justice buried:* > > > > *Suggestion 6: *As anything to do with courts take long, even the > improvements to the system may take a long time to come. A centipede that > is crawling may take a man walking at normal speed as super fast and think > such a speed is impossible to achieve by anyone in the world! This > perception is already deep in the justice delivery system in India, our > country, as can be seen in the statement “justice hurried is justice > buried”. The million Rupee question is: what is the definition of hurried > justice? Is anything less than quarter of a century ‘hurried’? > > > > To mitigate the damage done to the aggrieved party in the meantime, the > least the courts could do is to expect execution of the judgment of the > lower court, without any further delay and prescribe severe punishment for > not complying with the lower court order and executing it. Such a provision > will at least deny the enjoyment to the wrong-doer till the final judgment > is delivered in all civil cases. This will also drive accountability in > judges of the lower court since their judgment has now weight in the sense > it will be immediately executed. If the lower court judgments are > implemented immediately on expiration of appeal period (what is the need to > file an execution suit when there is a provision for appeal against any > order?), it would be a far better situation. The total number of cases > would come crashing down, as the execution suits, that are equal in number > to the suits on which any court delivers any judgment, are no longer > required. Of course this has to go with other suggestions in this write-up. > > > > *Suggestion 7: Why courts shut down during ‘vacation’?* > > > > I had often wondered why courts have a summer vacation. They are not > kindergarten schools nor are the advocates or the judges school kids. The > entire world industry operates continuously without break but with break > for its employees. Why not the court system? This adds enormous delay to > the already over-delayed justice delivery system. Why not abolish vacation > to courts but continue vacation to all people working in the courts, like > in any other industry? Why the courts need vacation, during which the > purpose for which they are created comes to naught? > > > > More suggestions follow. > > With warm regards, > > Muthuswamy N > > Quest Systems Pvt. Ltd. – *Ensuring effectiveness by simplifying > complexities by re-engineering thinking processes, the Quest Way.* > Author: Success through Opposites - 2nd edition e-book available for > sampling and purchase: > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/375624. > > Author: Success through Super Systems - A Single Dynamic to Steer your > Life's Decisions: > > https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/553906 > > For review clicik: *Success Through Super Systems * > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Csn Sarma > wrote: > >> more