Recently I came across an article in Times of India titled “More Judges not only way
to reduce pendency”. The article deserves appreciation. Being in the legal
profession for last 19 years, I have been privy to the ills which are plaguing
the legal system in our country. I have also authored a book "COURTS,
POLICE AUTHORITIES & COMMON MAN’ which bares and explains the niceties of
our legal system in layman’s language.
I feel that following few small steps, if taken with
sincerity, will be quite helpful in cutting down on the pendency of cases in
the courts :
1. Discourage Frivolous litigation
Quite often, people file the case in the court despite the fact that
the case is not maintainable under law. But they still take a chance. Such
cases clog the judicial system, thereby delaying the disposal of genuine cases.
Some litigants also use false submissions and documents in support of their
case. Such litigants and lawyers who file such cases are required to be dealt
with a heavy hand. For filing false submissions in the pleadings filed in court
and for filing false/fabricated documents, strict action is required to be
taken frequently by initiating proceedings under the criminal law (Section 340
CrPC etc) against such persons. The court should also refer the names of the
lawyers who file such frivolous cases to the concerned Bar Council for taking
action under the Advocates Act. Exemplary costs should be imposed while
dismissing such frivolous cases and substantial part of cost should be paid to the
opposite party who has been made to suffer by such frivolous litigation.
2. Award cost of litigation to winning party
The Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that the loosing
party should be directed to pay the cost of entire litigation to the winning
party. The cost should be realistic cost which would include the expenses
incurred by the winning party in paying court fees, lawyer’s fees, travelling
fees, opportunity cost, interest, etc. However, invariably, the Indian courts
either do not grant costs to the winning party or grant ridiculous low cost to
the winning party. Abroad, in countries like USA and UK, very heavy costs are
awarded against the loosing party, which deter people to file false / frivolous
cases.
3. Improve quality of advocates representing Governments, PSUs,
autonomous and local bodies
Its a known fact that the biggest litigant in Indian courts is the
Government. Many of the cases filed against the Government authorities can be
disposed off in one or two hearings but this does not happen because mostly the
advocates representing the Govt authorities are not well equipped, either with
facts or with law, to argue on the 1st date (or first few dates) and invariably
take adjournment. They should be vigilant, efficient and competent enough to
take instructions in advance from the concerned deptt so as to place correct
facts and uptodate position before the court for the court to take appropriate
and quick decision in the matter. Merit, and not connection, should be the
criteria in selecting / appointing the advocate for the Government. Also, to
improve the quality of such advocates, the measly fees paid to such advocates
need to be increased substantially to motivate them to keep themselves abreast
with latest developments and judgments and to do more hard work in their cases.
4. Ensure quality of orders passed by Administrative and
quasi-judiicial officers / bodies
Many a cases land up in courts challenging the incorrect and
inappropriate orders passed by the administrative and quasi-judiicial officers
/ bodies. Sometimes, principles of natural justice are not followed by these
authorities while passing the orders and sometimes they are not aware of the
law and latest legal judgments on the subject. In most of these cases, the orders
are set aside by the courts. So, administrative and quasi-judiicial officers /
bodies could be given periodic training by legal luminaries to reduce the
chances of passing fallible orders. In case an officer is found passing such
wrong orders repeatedly, the appropriate Government may consider terminating
such officer.
I have represented the Union of India in Delhi High Court for 3
terms since 1999. At present, I am representing Delhi Government and am also
Standing Counsel to the North MCD in Delhi High Court. I have seen the working
of judges, the department officers and the advocates from close quarters and I
am making the above suggestions on the basis of my experience in courts for
last 19 years.
Sunil Goel advocate
B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm
