High Cost, Long Delays

Full transcript of the BBC Hindi Special Programme Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath with the lawminister Hans Raj Bhardwaj

Nagendar Sharma: What are your priorities as the Law Minister of the country?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj : Simplification of  the judicial system and addressing the long delays indisposal of the pending cases. India’s judicial system is strong and has the trust of the public, we only need toaddress the costliness of this and the delays in disposal of cases. For general public to be assured, we needto bring the rising costs down and remove the delays. We are committed to modernise the system and make its functioningsmooth. We hope to do it inconsultation with the judiciary and others and by October we should be able to start this.

BBC listener from Bangkok: Sir, why do those guilty of communal riots get away without anypunishment in India, whether it be the Gujarat riots or those which followed the Babri Masjid demolition?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: There were problems in the Babri Masjid demolition case, as big names wereinvolved, and attempts were made to delay the case. The shameful Gujarat riots also put a questionmark on the country, but see how the Supreme Court intervened and removed the obstacles. 

Now, we are not satisfied with only this. Since our government assumed office, we decidedthat shameful incidents such as Gujarat riots would not be allowed to be repeated in this country. I assure you that such shameful acts would not be allowed.The way the rule of law and the judicialprocess was manipulated and made helpless by the previous government, we are firmly looking into it and wouldredress the complaints to the satisfaction of the Indian public.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Bhardwaj, the Supreme Court intervention was only in one case. More than fourhundred riots cases are still pending in Gujarat. The basic point is why are those guilty of riots notpunished?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: What the Supreme Court has said with regards to Gujarat riots, that those who were constitutionally responsible for running the judicial process --  the police, the administration-- they did not actively fulfil their duties and we would probe why they remained passive during that periodand who was responsible for that. This is our responsibility, which in normal circumstances would have been the duty of the stategovernment, but because there was a total collapse of the state’s responsibility towards law, that issomething under consideration. The use of phrase ‘modern Neros’ by the Supreme Court is veryserious.

So all that is being considered by the government, and we find such a situation to be really unfortunate in which the people have lost faith inthe state’s judiciary and do not feel safe inthe state. We are concerned about this and since this is a very serious matter, it would be solved after carefuland serious consideration. 

BBC listener from Delhi:  Sir, more than two crore twenty six lakh cases are pending inIndia, and your government wants to abolish the fast track courts. How will you bring down the long list ofpendency then, as you are well aware of the dictum ‘justice delayed is justice denied’...

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: What is required is filling up the posts of judges in High Courts throughout thecountry which have been lying vacant during the past five years. About one-third posts of High Court judges inthe country are vacant at the moment. Within a month of coming to power, our government has filled up thevacant posts of High Court judges in three states – Uttaranchal, Rajasthan and Delhi. We are determined to keep this pace, and we are dealing with the vacancies of one High Courtevery month to clear this backlog.  

Now as to your your question: What the previous government had termed as fast track courts, were in factnot on the fast track. The money given by the Finance Commission was handed over to the states by theprevious central government, and they were asked to appoint retired judges who were to decide 14 cases amonth. 

Since a long time, there have been recommendations of the Law Commission which clearly saythat the requirement of judicial manpower should be looked at every two-three years, and the required numbersof judges should be provided by the government. The then Chief Justice at the time of the previous governmenthad asked for more judges, but this was not done either. Now what we are saying is that keeping the Law Commission report in mind, we should be able toprovide the requisite number of judges, if not more.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Bhardwaj, you are talking about filling up vacancies, but recently the two chiefjustices at the time of retirement expressed displeasure at the vacancies and the indifference by successivegovernments...

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: We have decided that despite the financial constraints and other similarproblems, we would do all that it takes to keep the judiciary strong and its functioning smooth. As far as possible we would increase the number of judges according to their requirement, andwould send them quickly to their places of posting to bring down the pendency in courts. During my previoustenure, I was successful in bringing down the pendency in the Supreme Court, this time we hope to do so in High Courtsas well.

This time I also intend to implement the programme of automisation and computerisation of courts. If I amsuccessful in doing this, the country would see a definite decrease in the number of pending cases.

BBC listener from Jodhpur: Sir, you have admitted that there is shortage of judges in India. Iwant to draw your attention towards the long and cumbersome process of the judicial process in the county,especially the revenue cases linger on indefinitely. Can anything be done to shorten this long and painfulprocess?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: We would have to understand that ours is a poor country and we have an oldlegal system. More judges and courts could not be provided as were required and the state governments haveexperienced difficulties in this regard. We are going to call all the Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts to Delhi soon, andwe would discuss with them the ways to bring down the pendency and other practical solutions to this problem. 

In fact there should not be a delay in the revenue cases, as these are dealt separately and not inordinary courts, we would draw the attention of the state governments towards this. These cases can be solvedby directly going to the public, let me make it clear that it is for the executive officers who have to dothis. Wherever there is a delay, the responsibility lies with the local administration. Since this is a matterconcerning rural India, we are looking into this, and by next month I would be in a position to give you theexact picture..

Nagendar Sharma: But why is the common man afraid of legal process and the courts?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: On the contrary, I would say the common man in India trusts only the courts. What he isafraid of is the long process -- but then our legal process is two centuries old -- that causes delays, and the costinvolved in litigation.  These are the two things which make the common man fear, and this is a problembeing faced by many civilised societies. When I was the Law Ministry last time, we had drawn up a 20 pointprogramme, in which we endeavoured that solutions could be reached in other ways rather than leaving everything to thecourts, and after amending the laws these solutions were conciliation, arbitration and mediation.  Sothese are the practical ways of  finding solutions.

Now this would take a little time and would appear complex, but if we settle into this and itworks out, then I think aided with computerisation and bunching of cases --and we would also amend the proceduretowards simplification -- just as we succeeded in bringing the pendency down in the Supreme Court, we would succeedin this also.

BBC listener from Hyderabad : Sir what you are saying is appreciable, but how would you tacklethe rampant corruption in judiciary? Many chief justices of the Supreme Court have also raised this...

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: There is a lot of noise about corruption in judiciary, especially in recent years. Ihave drawn the attention of the Chief Justice of India towards this. Cooperation of public is required inremoving corruption from the courts, if anyone spots anything like this, then it should be highlighted. So faras this practice in judges is concerned, we are going to talk to the Chief Justice and we are working swiftlyin this regard. In the past, people of the country had immense faith in the judiciary and it has to berestored back to the same level. 

Nagendar Sharma: But are you not concerned the way common people are losing faith in judiciary, especiallywith cases of corruption in  higher judiciary?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: Ours is a democratic system in which every institution is accountable to theConstitution,  the executive is accountable to Parliament and the judiciary is accountable in thecourt of the public of the country. When the public says there is something wrong with the judiciary, thenjudiciary should realise this, and whatever help judiciary needs the government is ready to provide. We mustall understand the judiciary of the country must be free, fair and transparent, then only would the people ofthe country be able to trust the law and the courts fully. We are worried and concerned over this. I met the newChief Justice of the country as soon as I assumed the charge of the law ministry -- both of us have discussedthis matter. I appeal to the public of the country to come forward fearlessly and write directly to me ifthey have come across any cases of corruption in judiciary. The government is worried and I assure we aredetermined to restore the faith of the public in judiciary.

BB listener from Rohtak : Sir, delays apart, out legal system is very costly and out of reach ofthe common man, and is only for big leaders and businessmen who commit any crime or fraud and get away. Canthis all be changed?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: See there is already a National Legal Services Law, in which the women and theweaker sections of the society are entitled for free legal help. I am aware that this is a problem and we donot want anybody in the country to be deprived of legal help because of economic constraints. We have this inthe Common Minimum Programme of the new government, and we want to take this legal help to all the villages ofthe country. We are also in the process of setting up mobile courts for speedy disposal of cases.

BBC listener from Ghazipur : Sir what is being done to streamline the appointment of judges andmaking it transparent? Why not have a judicial commission for this ?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: This idea of National Judicial Commission is not a good one, and the presentsystem of appointment of judges is a good procedure. The present procedure has important components of carefulscrutiny and consultation. Presently appointments are done after the chief Justices of High Courts discusswith the fellow judges, with state governments and also consult the Supreme Court Chief Justice.  Afterdue care only the names are sent to the President.

Now, this idea of a commission would only lead to deadlocks and fights, which I think is not goodfor the judicial image. This idea does not seem workable, and I feel that this procedure which we have beenfollowing since past five decades is a good one based on consultation -- and it works.

Nagendar Sharma: So you are satisfied with the present appointments system?

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: I am fully satisfied with this and it works. I am saying this with my experiencein the Law Ministry.

BBC listener from Patna : Why is the Indian Law flexible in comparison to the developed countries? I am referring to the big names being let-off easily by the Indian courts, all scams involving big names donot yield any judicial decision...

Hans Raj Bhardwaj: The democratic roots of our country are so strong, that any name however big isbrought before the law. Such names try to evade the law, but they do not succeed. I say there are two thingswhich have worked well in India and these are the judiciary and the democratic process. India has its ownproblems, we are serious towards them. As I said earlier, it is the high cost of litigation and the delay, if weremove them we would be proud of  our judicial system.