Justice hurried is justice buried, feel lawyers

Agitations against it has been reported in states like Gujarati, Rajasthan, Orissa and Tamil Nadu, as well. The BCI will hold a meeting to discuss the issue on January 28, while the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa will discuss the issue on January 29.

The amendments itself were introduced to help dispense justice faster and reduce the burden on the courts. However, it ended up, as advocate Narendra Walavalkar put it, “as a case of pitting the maxim “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’, against the maxim, `Justice Hurried is Justice Buried’, and the latter is discounted”. With emphasis on a system that delivers justice quicker, the amendments have reduced the scope for the litigant to seek redressal.

For instance, earlier, a litigant in a property suit valued at around Rs 3,000 could appeal against the Small Causes Court order in the Small Causes Court itself. So, a single judge’s order could be appealed before a division bench.

But, now, following an amendment to Section 96 (4) of the CPC, first appeals for such `piffling’ suits valued at Rs 3,000 have been abolished and only in suits valued at Rs 10,000 or more will first appeals lie in the Small Causes Court. The rest, will have to appeal only through the limited avenues of writ petitions in the high courts.

“Who are these people whose suits are valued at Rs 3,000? Small tenants who do not have the werewithal to approach the high court. Where are these persons supposed to go once their suits are dismissed by the lower court,” asks Bhonsle.

Similarly, such appeals in the high court, under the Letters Patent Appeal, where a single judge’s order is challenged before a division bench, have been totally abolished, with the introduction of Section 100 (a). The next move is to join the queue outside the Supreme Court, of course only if one had a small fortune to one’s name.

A more immediate threat is the amendment to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC where a plaintiff will no longer be allowed to amend his petition. Earlier, a plaintiff, who has filed a case against, say his landlord, could amend his petition on subsequent developments, tell the court about the harassment of the landlord on filing the suit, or if the suit premises has been sold or let out. Under the new rules, no amendment will be allowed at all. The only way out will be for the tenant to file a separate suit.

Under the Rent Act, as well, if a suit has been filed by a landlord for recovery of premises, a tenant cannot amend his pleading if he discovers later that the landlord has his own house and did not need the suit premise at all!

The amended CPC also gives the court the power to refer a vexatious matter for arbitration even if the parties oppose it. Only if it fails there, need the court take up the matter for hearing. This, Bhonsle believes, will add to the financial burden on the parties since they will have to pay the arbitrator, and there is no guarantee that the case will be disposed of.

So how did it come to such a pass when one of the best judicial mind heads the Union Law Ministry and luminaries like advocate Kapil Sibal are in the Rajya Sabha? Bhonsle says that despite the fact that the BCI had a sub-committee to suggest changes, nobody saw the bill when it was formulated. It was not circulated among the bar councils in the country.

Walavalkar expresses surprise that “such a bill should be carried and enforced at a time when Ram Jethmalani should be the minister for law and judiciary”.

Also, is it right to stonewall litigants’ attempts to seek redressal at a time when there are complaints that the system is not attracting “good judges” because of poor salaries? “As it is lower court judges, to be in the good books of their superiors show high disposal rates, dismissing matters in a jiffy,” he says.

Now that the bill is already an act, and amended books on the CPC are already out, lawyers believe challenging the amendments, once the notification of the act is made, is the only way out.