Judiciary has a duty to be seen equal in treatment to all, and some getting speedy relief needs to be debated
It remains a question if quick relief by courts as seen in several instances is available to all citizens alike or otherwise. Are all being treated equally or some are more equal than others before the law is the question that requires an answer. Do some of these reliefs have any linkage to the appellant’s capacity and capability to engage a more competent advocate?
Indian judiciary is best known in the world for its unique reputation of being a role model for its impartiality, fairness and independence and also as the one which treats a commoner and first citizen on equal footing. Several examples in this regard could be cited. But, somehow, it appears that somewhere something is missing and why it is so, one is unable to comprehend.
For instance, in 1969 VV Giri was elected as President of India and a petition was filed in the Supreme Court, urging that the election be set aside. Giri as President of the country in a rare instance appeared in person in court and was examined as a witness. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court passed a historical judgment disqualifying the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from holding public office for six years which of course was later stayed partially by the Supreme Court vacation judge on June 24, allowing her to continue as Member of Lok Sabha and also as Prime Minister. Interestingly, NA Palkhivala argued her case.
On October 12, 2000, former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by a trial judge but was later acquitted by the Delhi High Court in 2002. Former President Neelam Sanjiva Reddy had to resign as Chief Minister in 1964, following unfavorable observations made against him in the Bus Routes Nationalization case. Chief Ministers Lalu Prasad Yadav, J Jayalalitha were unseated following court judgements.
Indian judiciary is credited for rectifying wrongs done in its earlier judgment. For instance, the Supreme Court in January 2011 admitted that its decision during the Emergency was erroneous and violated the Fundamental Rights of the people of the people. The bench referred to the majority decision of the Constitution Bench in 1976, which became infamous as the Habeas Corpus case, in which four judges went with the then Congress Government view that even the right to life stood abrogated during Emergency. It was Justice HR Khanna who rightly gave a dissenting judgment by holding that issue of writs of Habeas Corpus by High Courts is an integral part of the Constitution and no power has been conferred upon any authority in the Constitution for suspending that power. This later resulted in Khanna being superseded to the office of the Chief Justice of India.
The Constitution is the law of the land and the supreme law in India. If any law passed violates the basic structure of the Constitution, the Indian judiciary has the power to nullify that law. This goes without saying that all citizens are equal before the law. But a critical observation gives rise to a doubt as to why the justice is quick and on fast track in few select cases whereas by and large it is slow, notwithstanding the reputation of the courts that they treat a commoner and first citizen on the same equilibrium.
From one side we hear about the huge pendency of the cases and from the other side we see disposals in the courts within hours of filing either in the form of a stay order or an interim relief or reversing the government orders or granting a bail etc. No doubt, the law has obviously provided for various forms of relief like Lunch motions, House motions, Habeas Corpus petitions, etc. However, the concept of restraining order is still underdeveloped and unclear under Indian law.
Why cases that were initiated decades ago on some individuals for which in numerous instances they were kept in jails as undertrials for a long period and were released on bail after rejecting several times in lower courts and higher courts are kept pending is not known. There are instances where some of these individuals on bail, contest elections and even occupy very high constitutional positions. Why such cases are not decided either way is a million dollar question. As far as the civil disputes are concerned it is anybody’s guess of their disposal. Quite often the judgement passed in a lower court, with several options provided for appeal is stayed in no time. The disputes at times take longer than the life of the petitioners. This reminds me of the proverb, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ which was taught for social studies’ students.
The Indian Judiciary is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. India uses a common law system, first introduced by the British East India Company and with influence from other colonial powers and Indian princely states, as well as practices from ancient and medieval times. The Constitution provides for a single unified judiciary in India.
The judicial system is structured in three levels with subsidiary parts. The Supreme Court, also known as the Apex Court, is the top court and the ultimate appellate court in India. The Chief Justice of India leads that court. High Courts are the top judicial bodies in individual states, controlled and managed by state Chief Justices. Below the High Courts are District Courts, also known as subordinate courts, which are controlled and managed by District and Sessions Judges. The lower subordinate courts are Civil Court and the District Munsif Court, headed by a Sub-Judge. The higher subordinate Criminal Court is headed by Chief Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate. This gives abundant scope for the aggrieved in seeking justice.
There are five writ petition types in the Indian Constitution, which a citizen can file either before the High Court or Supreme Court. They are: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition. The Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs.
A writ petition can be filed by any individual in the Supreme Court when Fundamental Rights have been violated by the State whereas a writ petition can be filed in the High Court when Fundamental Rights or any other rights have been violated by the State. Appeals in civil and criminal cases are made to the High Court against the decision of the subordinate courts. Supreme Court entertains matters in which interest of the public at large is involved popularly known as 'Public Interest Litigation' and several matters of public importance have become landmark cases.
The Indian judicial system undoubtedly is so greatly structured with several kinds of reliefs to the citizen giving him or her plentiful opportunity for redressal of any kind of injustice done. But something is missing is the feeling of a common man.
(The author is a policy analyst)
