Judicial pendency is an issue that has been much talked about in the recent past. Almost all opinions point fingers either at the judiciary or the litigant. But there is another side of the story. Pendency has to be viewed not just from the executive side, which speaks and understands only the language of the head. But there is a language of the heart, too.
We need to realise that the large number of court cases are some kind of a reassurance of the faith the people of India repose in the Constitution and the judiciary. After all, why do people go to courts when they have not been given fair treatment by the other institutions of GovernanceIJ
The fault may lie with the executive that has denied justice, forcing people to seek judicial redressal. The blame that Indian people are litigious may not be fair. This is barking up the wrong tree. The fact of the matter is that many times those operating the instruments of the state have not followed their dharma or in other words not acted righteously. Had they acted judiciously, the judiciary would not have been burdened.
The rules, the organs and the instruments of the state need to understand that their duty is to follow the dictates of the dharma and act according to the principles of the Raj Dharma. If justice is denied, the law is burdened. It is only unfortunate that even after over seven decades of self-rule, the Government machinery is viewed with suspicion and contempt, and the poor people have to seek recourse by way of Constitutional remedies. Justice gets delayed not because of the judiciary but because of the executive which exercises power without restraint.
Of course, this is not to deny that judicial pendency is a serious problem in India. It is and we definitely need to deliver speedy justice. But the flip side is that the hurdles to speedy justice do not all emanate from the judiciary. Judiciary in many cases also gets frustrated when the executive circumvents the path of justice by unreason.
A careful analysis of many a judgements of higher judiciary would reveal that the executive has to be blamed for dilatory tactics. It needs to be understood that the common man fights with his hard-earned money, whereas the executive fights with the taxpayers’ money. For argument’s sake, let’s assume a hypothetical scenario — a person challenges some action of the executive in a High Court. The court gives relief. The executive seeks review of the judgement in a larger Bench. Even after a verdict in favour of the victim, the executive keeps on dragging the matter to a higher level of judiciary.
An issue that could have been resolved in one stage is dragged up to several stages. Who is to be blamedIJ The aggrieved person fights for an issue that is related to survival. The executive fights for its ego. We need to see pendency in this light and strengthen the law of torts. There is need to make the executive answerable for dragging cases.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had once pronounced in one of its judgement that only God can save this country. That was out of disgust for the state of affairs, rather affairs of the state. For the common man, the judiciary is the last resort. He, after all, has some self-respect. And he seeks to retrieve that with the help of the judiciary
The writer is a professor of management and public speaker. He can be reached at ppathak.ism@gmail.com