M J Antony: Case flow management

OUT OF COURT

Courts are not known to let in the whiffs of modernity very easily. In some cases, trials may be conducted by remote video systems connecting the courts to the jails, as in Bihar. But computerisation is far behind times even in the high courts. If you search for an order on their websites you are mostly likely to be disappointed.

Therefore, when the Supreme Court talks of "case flow management" on modern principles, eyebrows are bound to be raised. The Supreme Court has received a report on case flow management from a committee set up by it headed by the chairman of the Law Commission. In a recent judgement, Salem Bar Association vs Union of India, it was discussed in detail.

The Supreme Court recognised that "the case flow management and model rules can yield remarkable results in achieving more disposal of cases. Its mandate is for the judge to set a time table and monitor a case from its initiation to its disposal. A survey of the progress made in other countries leads to the conclusion that the case management system has yielded exceedingly good results."

The report has put forth model case flow management rules for trial courts, the first appellate subordinate courts and for the high courts. These draft rules extensively deal with the various stages of litigation.

The Supreme Court has recommended to the high courts that they examine these rules, discuss the matter and consider the question of adopting or making case law management and rules with or without modification, so that a step forward is taken to provide for speedy and inexpensive justice to the litigants.

Since the high courts have administrative control over the subordinate courts, these provisions could be incorporated in the High Court Rules, with suitable amendments.

One of the several innovative steps suggested is the channelling of cases into different tracks, based on the nature of the dispute, the amount of evidence to be recorded and the time likely to be taken for the completion of the suit.

For instance, there is a special track for intellectual property matters, trade mark and copyright disputes. There is another track for money suits and disputes based on negotiable instruments. The deadline set for the first set is two years and for the second, one year.

One of the serious complaints against the courts is the easy grant of interim orders, often without hearing the affected party. Recently, the Gauhati High Court passed such an order against the public issue of a Mumbai company, forcing the company to rush to the Supreme Court the day before the opening date.

Often, the litigation is reduced to a battle for the interim orders, because the final order or judgement would come many years later. The committee has made certain suggestions to regulate the abuse of process in this respect.

According to it, if an interim order is granted at the first hearing, the opposite party can move the court immediately for vacating it, without waiting for the next appointed date of hearing. Such application shall be listed as soon as possible, even before the date fixed for regular hearing.

If the original party which got the order in its favour fails to file its reply or deliberately makes itself scarce to enjoy the benefit as long as possible, the court shall list the case for vacating the order. This, says the committee, is meant to prevent parties taking adjournments with a view to have undue benefit of the interim orders.

Yet another nagging problem with litigation is the grant of frequent adjournments, often for nearly six months. The Civil Procedure Code has recently been amended to reduce the number of adjournments to three, that, too, on showing reasonable cause.

There is a provision for awarding cost, or "higher cost", depending upon the circumstances. The Supreme Court suggested that the cost awarded should not be nominal but realistic. It can even be punitive when the request was avoidable, negligent or made casually. However, more adjournments may be granted under circumstances beyond the control of the parties, like hospitalisation or "act of God".

The problem, in practice, is that these extra adjournments are asked for and granted too frequently and the rules are still ineffective. Therefore, the implementation of all these regulations depends upon the consciousness of the legal fraternity. They had protested against such amendments to the code and have even gone on illegal strikes in several parts of the country.

There is a reluctant truce now and things are as before. The onus is on the high courts to follow the recommendations of the committee and draft rules as early as possible and publicise them for the benefit of the public. The judiciary must also enforce them strictly if the arrears of cases, now in crores, are to be reduced at least to five figures in the near future.