Strike at the mess

Judicial reforms have been too slow to make an appreciable impact. It is the practitioners of law who have proved to be the stumbling blocks in any attempt to reform the system. The story is much the same with the effort the Vajpayee government has made to amend certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The lawyers see in the changes a threat to their interests and have, therefore, threatened to strike work on Thursday. Since the Bill for the amendment has been passed by Parliament, all that the government has to do is to notify it. Nobody believes that the amendment, which has been in the making for some time, will transform the judicial system and bring it in sync with the needs of the day. As it is, it only tinkers with the Code, not overhauls it. Nevertheless, it makes a promising beginning as it strikes at some of those features of the Code which encourage delay and make the whole judicial process cumbersome. Adjournment of hearings on frivolous grounds and endless appeals are just twoaspects of the system that call for urgent reform. The idea of putting a brake on them is to ensure a measure of certainty to the court proceedings. It is not difficult to realise why the lawyers are not ready to give the CCP amendments a try.

Central to the issue is the lawyers’ perception that these proposed changes will deprive them of some income. But it does not occur to them that the money they lose is the money the litigants save. Be that as it may, the matter should not be reduced to one of lawyers’ income. It is well known that the lawyers had wanted to play a major role in the running of the consumer courts, where cases are now decided on the basis of written complaints and seldom on elaborate and long-winding arguments. Similarly, in a large number of civil and criminal cases, particularly those related to frauds, the judges can decide them without having to hear arguments and cross-examination by the advocates. Since this will deprive the lawyers of some work, they have been resisting it. In any case, there can be little doubt that the justice system in its present form has failed to deliver the goods. At a conservative estimate, there are now over 30 million cases pending, some of which are over a decade old. At the present rate ofclearance, it will take a century for the courts to clear them.

As a result, the litigants are losing confidence in the system. The lawyers who camouflage their concerns as the worries of poor litigants forget that the present system is favourably disposed towards the rich, who can go on appeal after appeal and hinder the smooth hearing of cases. This can be brought home by the fact that while the accused in the Baring Bank scandal in the UK was tried, found guilty and punished, the accused in the Securities scandal that occurred here around the same time is still awaiting for his case to be listed in the Supreme Court. This kind of delay defeats the very purpose of the justice system. If the lawyers have the interests of the litigants at hearts, as they claim, they should come up with concrete suggestions to make the justice system more effective, less cumbersome and within the reach of all sections of the people. Going on strike is not the answer.