This Article is written by Abhay Yadav, who is an 2nd year BA.LLB(H) Student at IILM University, published on Legalkhabar.online
“Tareekh pe Tareekh” Culture in Indian District Courts
"The judiciary is the strongest bastion of democracy in India."- Fali S.NarimanIndia that is BHARAT, is one of the largest democratic states, with the bulkiest constitution and biggest governance system. It has got three factorial matrix, which helps the government to govern the citizens of this country i.e., Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. These are considered as the major pillars of the Democratic BHARAT and among those pillars, one is the strongest bastion of our country i.e., Judiciary.
The judiciary of India has its roots in ancient legal systems, evolving significantly over time. The modern Indian judiciary was established under British colonial rule with the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, which created high courts in major cities. Following independence in 1947, the Constitution of India established a robust judiciary, with the Supreme Court of India as its apex body.
Role Of Indian Judiciary
The judiciary is empowered to uphold the Constitution, interpret laws, and ensure justice. It operates through a hierarchical structure, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts. The system is designed to safeguard fundamental rights and ensure legal accountability. The Indian judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring justice in a vast and diverse democracy. As the guardian of the Constitution, the judiciary not only interprets and enforces legal norms but also safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens. Its role is multifaceted, encompassing the adjudication of disputes, the interpretation of laws, and the protection of constitutional values. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 4 SCC 225), the Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, safeguarding core constitutional values. The judicial checks executive and legislative actions, as seen in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980 3 SCC 625), where parts of the 42nd Amendment were struck down to preserve balance among state powers. Protecting fundamental rights is central, exemplified by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 1 SCC 248), which expanded Article 21 to ensure fair and reasonable laws. The judiciary resolves significant disputes, providing guidance, as in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 3 SCC 1), which clarified the limits of President's Rule under Article 356. Addressing social justice and inequality, the judiciary combats corruption through cases like Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998 1 SCC 226). Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have become vital, allowing intervention in public matters, enhancing the judiciary's role in protecting marginalized communities and environmental issues. Through these actions, the judiciary reinforces democracy and the rule of law.
In summary, the Indian judiciary is a cornerstone of the country's democratic framework, ensuring that constitutional values are upheld and justice is delivered. Through its interpretive functions, its role in checking governmental powers, and its commitment to protecting fundamental rights and social justice, the judiciary contributes to the stability and integrity of the Indian legal system. Its decisions and doctrines continue to shape the legal landscape and reinforce the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
The Hierarchy of the Indian Court System
The above factions are intended to provide an understanding and recapitulation of our judicial system. However, as the title suggests, this article aims to raise awareness about the backwardness and problems prevalent in District and Subordinate Courts across Indian states. These courts face numerous challenges, including case backlog and delays, inadequate infrastructure, shortage of judges, administrative inefficiencies, and limited access to justice. These issues significantly impact the justice delivery system and cause distress to justice seekers.
Among these issues, the most troubling for the public today is the "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture, where cases are continuously adjourned for various reasons, resulting in prolonged delays in obtaining justice. This culture has become a major impediment, with individuals waiting indefinitely for their cases to be resolved. According to sources, over 30 million cases are pending in District and Subordinate Courts in India, with more than 3 million cases pending for almost a decade, as per reports from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). These statistics paint a grim picture of the condition of our judicial system at the grassroots level.
For any system to succeed in a democratic country like India, it must be properly implemented and managed at the grassroots level. While the justice system operates effectively at the apex level, such as in High Courts and the Supreme Court, it struggles at the grassroots level, causing significant distress to the public. This reality undermines the core purpose of the judicial system.
On paper, our justice system appears robust, but in practice, district courts encounter specific issues. Cases remain pending due to various factors, such as advocates' frequent absences or their representation of more clients than they can effectively handle. Additionally, some judges exhibit lethargy in creating a supportive environment for advocates to deliver justice. Furthermore, the shortage of judges in District Courts exacerbates the problem, leading to prolonged delays in case resolution.
Indians Losing Trust in District Courts and Subordinate Courts
The "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture, a term popularized by Bollywood and now a grim reality in Indian courts, epitomizes the systemic delays and adjournments that plague the judiciary. This culture, where cases are perpetually postponed, has a detrimental effect on the judicial system and the public's trust. It signifies a larger malaise affecting the justice delivery mechanism at the grassroots level, leading to severe consequences for justice seekers.
One of the most significant impacts of the "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture is the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. People approach courts with the hope of obtaining timely and fair resolutions to their disputes. However, when cases are endlessly adjourned, the litigants face prolonged uncertainty and hardship. This delay in justice not only frustrates the parties involved but also undermines the fundamental principle that "justice delayed is justice denied." The backlog of over 30 million cases in District and Subordinate Courts, with more than 3 million pending for a decade, highlights the severity of this issue.
Take, for instance, the case of Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India. The protracted litigation, stretching over years with multiple adjournments, showcases the inefficiency and lethargy that has become synonymous with the lower judiciary. Similarly, in numerous property and family disputes, litigants are left in limbo, waiting for years to see their cases through, often with minimal progress being made from one hearing to the next.
This delay negatively impacts not only the litigants but also the broader society. Businesses are particularly hard hit, as unresolved legal disputes create an environment of uncertainty that can hinder economic growth and development. For instance, commercial disputes that drag on for years can deter investment, both domestic and foreign, as investors seek jurisdictions where the legal system is efficient and reliable.
Furthermore, the shortage of judges exacerbates the problem. With an overwhelming number of cases and a limited number of judges, the workload becomes unmanageable, leading to frequent adjournments. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reveals that many courts operate with less than the sanctioned strength of judges, leading to an increased burden on the existing judiciary. This shortage directly contributes to the delays in case proceedings and judgments.
Administrative inefficiencies also play a critical role. Inadequate infrastructure, lack of technological integration, and outdated procedural norms hamper the efficient functioning of the courts. Many district courts lack basic amenities such as proper courtroom facilities, digital case management systems, and adequate staffing, which are essential for smooth operations. The absence of these resources means that even if judges and advocates are diligent, systemic inefficiencies can still cause significant delays.
The "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture also has a psychological impact on the litigants. The constant postponements and the uncertainty of when a case will be resolved lead to immense mental stress and anxiety. This prolonged wait can be particularly distressing in cases involving personal liberty, such as bail applications, where an individual's freedom is at stake. In such scenarios, the delay not only affects the individual's life but also questions the very essence of the right to liberty and fair trial.
Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, has addressed this issue, underscoring the need for urgent reforms. In his speech, CJI Chandrachud emphasized the importance of strengthening the lower judiciary, stating, "The District Judiciary is the backbone of our justice delivery system. Without addressing the challenges at this level, the entire system suffers." He stressed the need for better infrastructure, increased judicial appointments, and the use of technology to streamline court processes. He also called for accountability among judges and advocates to reduce unnecessary adjournments, ensuring that cases are heard and decided within a reasonable timeframe.
The consequences of a distrusted judicial system in a democratic state like India are far-reaching. When people lose faith in the judiciary, they may resort to extrajudicial means to resolve their disputes, which can lead to a breakdown of law and order. Moreover, the perception of an ineffective judiciary can diminish respect for the rule of law, which is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy.
Ten Major Steps to Eradicate the "Tareekh pe Tareekh" Culture
CONCLUSION
The "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture in Indian District and Subordinate Courts is a deeply ingrained issue that severely undermines the effectiveness of our judicial system. With millions of cases pending and many languishing for over a decade, the promise of timely justice remains unfulfilled for countless citizens. This culture of perpetual adjournments erodes public trust in the judiciary, creating a sense of hopelessness and frustration among justice seekers. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud’s emphasis on reforming the lower judiciary highlights the urgent need for systemic changes. From increasing judicial appointments and enhancing court infrastructure to implementing technology and promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, a multifaceted approach is essential to address these challenges. Stricter regulation of adjournments, judicial accountability, procedural simplification, and continuous training for judicial personnel are critical steps towards creating a more efficient and responsive judicial system.
Public awareness, legal literacy, and strengthened legal aid services are also vital in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status, have access to timely and fair justice. By addressing these issues comprehensively, we can hope to eradicate the "Tareekh pe Tareekh" culture and restore faith in our judicial system. It is imperative for a democratic state like India to have a judicial system that functions effectively at all levels. The road to reform may be long and challenging, but it is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all. The judiciary must prioritize these reforms to deliver on its fundamental promise: justice delayed is justice denied.
Abhay Yadav
Noida
#Article #Judiciary #legalkhabar #law #legalissue
