INDIAN JUDICIARY IS MORE A BUSINESS FOR ADVOCATES THAN ANYTHING 4 DELIVERY OF JUSTICE.

Crores of rupees are being extracted under the name of justice without delivery of justice. After being estranged from livelihood, poor people sell their properties and pay to satisfy insatiable illogical demands of advocates, in search of justice in wonderland of Indian judiciary. Law is one, the one said to be the rule of law. But facts apart, justice are based on illusion of law made elusive by manipulation, inherent discretion, innumerous varied interpretation, of legal experts freely without any accountability and responsibility. The effects are no less than those of cruelest genocides by cruel autocrats of the history. Lacs of people suffer intolerable injustice mutely for being unable to afford time and money required in the process, many go mad after being delivered injustice as judiciary keeps on maligning them, many educated are running abroad and settling there. The maliciousness in the system is justified for upholding basic principle that no innocent should be implicated even if thousand offenders are acquitted. But the fact that in process of upholding such principle, a saturation time has come when survival of one innocent has been made intolerable by thousand acquitted criminals. Rich criminals are thriving as they are not scared of law. The law abiding are suffering as the system fails to protect them. What type should survive?
It is the duty of government to ensure justice. The government should be internally equipped with multiple interpretations& identification of offences, defenses, claims etc. The government must be able to deliver justice on mere application of a litigant without any legal support of an advocate. It is proven that most criminals falter on raw submission. But the process makes it mandatory to be wrapped by concoction, and manipulation, which is easy for a criminal and difficult for the law abiding. But still government delegates authority to advocates and judges. The role of advocate, cherished as an officer of the court, is the basis of all menace of all rot that emanates from the procedure. Advocates are treated as experts in the field and therefore the system envisages a role for advocates. A litigant has to go as per advice of the advocate. Judges don’t proceed unless presence of advocate is present. But advocate is not bound by any responsibility or accountability for failure to ensure legality or screen out illegalities. Under the garb of expert legal advice he is freely allowed to aid a criminal who promotes criminality in the system. Eighty percent of the enormous numbers of cases that are pending are purely due to illegal or knowingly untenable pleas concocted by advocates allegedly in the interest of justice of their clients pampered by judiciary to afford their legal fraternity intentionally for their survival. The role of advocate can be justified only if it aids for prompt and effective delivery of justice or it has to be punishable, even for simple reasons of seeking adjournment on grounds of not receiving instructions from client ,or of not being ready for the argument, or being busy somewhere else for argument in other case. The fact that Considerations on such grounds for advocates, hampers justice and is unnecessary torture to other side is ignored to flourish the business of advocates than delivery of justice.
Indian system of Justice is more dependent on application or rather on manipulation or concoction of law by advocates. The true facts of the case are secondary. Some advocates demand high fees because they can explain law better to judges or they have got better rapport with a particular judge. The face value factor, which is common mainly at Supreme Court, rather than merits of the case that go into delivery of justice. There are three tiers for pleadings facilitated at Supreme Court level to extract fees from the litigant. There are bar associations but no public grading of advocates on the basis of their performance as trainee, advocates of record, senior counsel for petitioner or respondents is discreetly kept secret. Every advocate confidently assures justice till he receives fees. The Supreme Court of India, the apex court of the land has granted a sort of agency to senior counsels to earn by selling certificates which have to be mandatorily attached while filing a curative petition. This has been done under the veil to avoid flood of curative petitions, to certify sustainable grounds. A senior counsel is allowed to earn by selling a certificate but he is not accountable or punishable for any flaw if the grounds certified were not sustainable. In fact the record shows that of the numerous certificates issued so far hardly any has succeeded. But in the process the constitutional bench of the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' has ensured earnings for senior counsels and their meditators. The fact that the process could be an impediment for the poor to access of justice is totally forgotten in the interest of earning of senior counsels and meditators.
It is commonly known that psychology required to be an effective judge is different than psychology required to be an advocate. A judge needs to adhere to law whereas the advocate has to manipulate law to protect his clients. Two are divergent if not totally contradictory, but still judges are selected from amongst the cream of advocates. The process fails to take note that some dirty linen goes alongwith. The roles cannot be switched, as electronically. But still to protect the business of advocates the judges are being promoted from amongst advocates. The trial court judges are not punishable for orders defying rule of law under the garb that they are appealable. All orders of trial court are invariably allowed to appeal without punishment for unsuccessful of appeal. The Supreme Court judges have absolute authority and blanket immunity from orders passed in defiance of rule of law as they cannot be assailed in open court. The review goes before the same judges who having passed the order have predetermined intentions and preconceived ideas. They lose nothing by defying a rule of law but they can earn extraneous considerations. Indian judiciary has deliberately allowed such liberties to keep the justice lingering for survival of advocates.
Such independence to judiciary and liberties to advocates is against democratic principles and there is need for judicial reforms urgently to avert disquiet or even a revolution.
It is a reality that only god can do ultimate justice, but we are not able to locate his location and seek it. But we humans out of our experience have made rules of law, and it is one, clearly in black and white with specific priorities, which should be strictly adhered at least by advocates and judges who profess it. Why are advocates and judges allowed to plead and differ from rule of law without any responsibility and accountability? Some injustice may occur inadvertently while going strictly as per rule of law as not all deeds are done in anticipation to end into legal litigation. But as per rule of law it is accessible by same parameters by all, but is not suspicious, and vulnerable for exploitation on extraneous consideration as much as while exercising authority by discretion and subjective interpretation. And with same stringent parameters the logic can be ascertained by all.
The writer , 9881711288, was compelled party in person right from Ro/Po DRT Pune, MSMEDF Council Pune, District Court Pune, High Court Bombay and Supreme Court in CA 5150/2017. This has been his observation. The fact that some, but very few, advocates and judges are exception has helped the study. more