Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
karira

Your Honour, time to end Your Lordship?

Recommended Posts

karira

An article by Manoj Mitta in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 09 November 2008:

Your Honour, time to end Your Lordship?-Deep Focus-Sunday TOI-Opinion-The Times of India

 

Your Honour, time to end Your Lordship?

 

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. This universally recognised HR principle applies to judges as well. Or so it seems from the case made by

 

Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan for at least a three-fold hike in the salaries of judges, in the wake of the sixth pay commission’s bonanza for their counterparts in the executive.

 

Nobody can quarrel with the proposition that better emoluments would help the bench attract better talent from the bar. And make the existing judges less vulnerable to the temptation, for instance, of wangling consumer goods as one from the Supreme Court and several from high courts are alleged to have done in the Ghaziabad provident fund scam.

 

Much as judges are justified in seeking higher salaries, consumers of justice, in turn, are entitled to demand a better service from them. For all the good they do in checking executive wrongs and resolving disputes, Indian judges still betray a paternalistic mindset which is out of tune with the temper of the times. Few have come to terms with the humbling fact that, rather than being regarded as benevolent divinities, they are increasingly assessed in terms of a service provider.

 

Weary of the deficient service they routinely get from courts (such as delays and inconsistencies), litigants are growing impatient with the haughty air cultivated by judges under the guise of protecting their independence. The tension between the recalcitrant service provider and the aggrieved consumer is evident from the manner in which the judiciary has been resisting reforms, howsoever overdue.

 

Here’s a wish list of reforms which the judiciary has been called upon to adopt in recent years in order to become a better service provider.

 

Replace excessive reverence in courts with a business-like work culture

 

Two years ago, the bar council of India, the regulatory body for lawyers, adopted a resolution asking them to give up the colonial practice of addressing judges as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship”. It said that Supreme Court and high court judges could instead be addressed as “Your Honour” or “Honourable Court” and subordinate court judges as “Sir”.

 

Though the then CJI, Y K Sabharwal, welcomed the proposal (at least for the record), there is yet no sign of the change which could well have helped judges assume the outlook of a service provider. Lawyers have been loathe to implement the bar council’s resolution lest they be misconstrued as being disrespectful to judges.

 

Mercifully, some of the judges have taken the initiative to get rid of the anachronism of excessive reverence. Two members of that miniscule minority, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice S Muralidhar of the Delhi high court, actually put out a request in the daily “cause list” (roster of cases heard by them) requesting lawyers not to address him as lords. Justice K Chandru of the Madras high court said it to the face of lawyers to stop speaking in a fawning manner. “Make your ‘humble submissions’ before God; before me it is enough if you make simple submissions,” he told a lawyer.

 

Be more transparent

 

The judiciary has long been notorious for its secrecy about how it appoints judges and how it disciplines the delinquent ones, if at all. Not surprisingly, judges have reacted to RTI — enacted in 2005 — as though it was an assault on their autonomy.

 

On an RTI query, the Supreme Court, for instance, refused to disclose whether its judges have been, in keeping with its own resolution passed in 1997, periodically filing declarations of their assets. Having first claimed that his office fell outside the scope of RTI, Justice Balakrishnan floated the theory that none of the constitution office holders could be held to account under that law.

 

While RTI exempts the applicant from giving any reasons, the Delhi high court framed a rule stating that only an affected party can seek information. Though RTI specifies the 10 categories of information exempt from disclosure, the high court added another category under its rules, stating in effect that any information that was not already in public domain would be withheld.

 

Follow ‘case flow management’ rules laid down by Supreme Court

 

On the recommendations made by an expert committee set by it, the apex court in 2005 came up with a slew of measures to quicken the process of dispute resolution. The promise made by the judiciary to mend its ways has, however, turned out to be as illusory as those made by politicians at the time of elections.

 

Take the measure requiring high courts to divide writ petitions into three categories depending on their urgency: fast track, normal track and slow track. It fixed deadlines for each category: the petitions on the fast track were meant to be disposed of within six months, those on the normal track within a year and the remaining within two years. This elaborate exercise has yielded little benefit to consumers of justice. For, even three years after the Supreme Court fixed those time limits, none of the high courts is abiding by them. Nor has the Supreme Court set an example to high courts in timely disposal of cases.

 

Cut down on vacations

 

In the name of reducing arrears in the Supreme Court, the government introduced a Bill this year to increase the strength of its judges from 25 to 30. The parliamentary standing committee on law and justice recommended that the court should also do away with lengthy vacations to boost its productivity.

 

This is despite an incremental reform made by the apex court in 2006 following a public appeal made by the then President, Abdul Kalam, to cut down on holidays. It reduced its summer vacation from eight weeks to seven weeks. That there is still ample scope to increase its working days is evident from the fact that the Supreme Court reopened last week after an eight-day Diwali break. Before that, in the same month of October, it had another eight-day vacation and that was for Dussehra. It will next shut for Christmas for two weeks.

 

The excuses cited for such a generous vacation policy are that judges are otherwise overworked and that they need to take time off to catch up with legal developments around the world. Litigants, however, find it incongruous that while courts frequently break for long vacations, they are being made to wait for years to get their due. It’s time the judiciary learnt lessons from other service providers and stopped taking its consumers for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      If a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, then payment has to be sought under the RTI Rules.
      The question before the Supreme Court was which Guidelines/Rules will govern the prescription of fee for copies of answer sheets and their inspection.
      The Court held that while the ICSI is governed by the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Examination Committee formed under the statute prescribes a certain fee, the RTI Rules also lay down a fee structure for procurement of answer sheets. The Court held,
      “In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.”
      The decision was rendered by a Bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer, which made it clear that if there are other avenues to procure answer sheets, the applicant can choose which one to route her request through.
      The RTI Rules entitle a student to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. When this right is exercised, Rule 4 will govern the levy of the required charges. This Rule stipulates a fee of Rs. 2 for each page of the answer script. For inspection, no fee is prescribed for the first hour. For every subsequent hour of inspection, the fee is Rs. 5 per hour.
      The order came in an appeal filed by the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI) against a decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
      The respondent, Advocate Paras Jain, had sought from ICSI certified copies of answer sheets and their inspection under RTI. He was charged a fee for the same as per Guideline No. 3 notified by the Statutory Council of the ICSI. As per the ICSI Guidelines, the fee for the supply of certified copies was Rs. 500 per answer sheet, and the charge for inspection was Rs. 450 per answer book.
      Download the decision here.15222_2014_Order_11-Apr-2019.pdf
    • momita
      By momita
      Eleven years after a lawyer sought details under the Right to Information Act from the Gujarat high court, the HC directed its public information officer (PIO) to furnish the details to the applicant.
      According to the commission's advocate, Shivang Shukla, an advocate, Kamlesh Bhavsar, had in 2007 sought information regarding appointment of judges to the Gujarat judiciary since 1990. The PIO supplied information regarding corruption charges against judicial officers and about their convictions within the time limit.

      However, the PIO refused to supply information on Bhavsar's request to furnish the names of all the judges - from the rank of judicial magistrate first class in the lower courts to the justices of the high court - appointed between 1990 and 2007. The PIO told the lawyer that he has asked for the information from the branches concernedand collating the details would take more time. He said he would supply information about the appointments as and when he got the details.

      On the PIO's refusal to part with the information at the same time, citing the delay in collating the details, Bhavsar filed an appeal before the state information commission, seeking a reply from the HC PIO about the applicant's grievance. In reply to commission's query, the HC's PIO explained his position and sent the details that had been collated to the commission, for it to supply to the lawyer. The PIO sent the information to the commission and requested it to supply the details to advocate Bhavsar, if it thought it fit.

      The commission ordered the HC PIO to supply the information to the lawyer. This did not go down well with the HC authorities and the registry challenged the commission's order on the judicial side in 2011. The HC last week dismissed its own petition.
      While directing the PIO to supply the information to the lawyer under RTE laws, Justice A J Desai dismissed the petition filed by the high court itself, in which it had challenged the directions issued to the HC by the Gujarat Information Commission, for furnishing the required information to the lawyer.

       

      View full entry
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy