M J Antony: No budgets for the judiciary

OUT OF COURT

During the past few weeks, we have heard lobbyists from all interest groups airing their grievances and giving suggestions to the Budget-makers at the Centre and the states.

However, one vital sector that has no spokespersons is the judiciary. This neglected area that has no promoters includes not only the Supreme Court and the high courts, but also the subordinate courts, tribunals and various other quasi-judicial bodies.

One has to read between the lines of certain judgements to find out how lack of financial resources affects the administration and dispensation of justice in the country at all levels.

The 100-page Supreme Court judgement passed a few weeks ago in Jamshed Guzdar vs State of Maharashtra is one such instance.

The judgement ostensibly dealt with the validity of three Acts passed by Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh governments with unwieldy titles like the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act and the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam.

The disputes started with the filing of public interest petitions. The legal issue involved was the competence of the state legislatures vis-à-vis Parliament to pass such laws, which would interest only the legal fraternity which delight in forensic intricacies.

But what matters for the public is the subtle lament of the Supreme Court that the governments have failed to set up more civil courts, appoint more judges and provide infrastructure.

The Acts in question aimed at giving more powers to the civil courts, raising their pecuniary jurisdiction and taking a large number of cases from the high courts.

But this has never been simple anywhere in the country. Each state, even the capital of Delhi, has experienced bitter feuds over this distribution of power.

The legal profession does not easily accept anyone disturbing status quo. They have gone to the courts to stop any change, and even resorted to agitation against professional norms and Supreme Court judgements.

Take one example from this judgement. Although the Bombay Act quoted above was passed in 1987 and received presidential assent immediately, it was not implemented for four years for want of infrastructure.

The Bombay high court had indicated to the government that before the law could be brought into force, the civil courts should be adequately equipped to handle the transfer of jurisdiction.

In 1988, it categorically stipulated that a minimum of 110 judges would be necessary as a precondition for the transfer of jurisdiction as envisaged by the Act.

The high court had indicated the requirements such as the requisite number of court halls, judges, chambers, houses, books and staff. For nearly a decade, there was wrangling over these eminently accepted suggestions.

Several bar associations and even the Merchants' Chamber intervened in the case, thus delaying the implementation of the Act.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court several times. In 1992, the Supreme Court found that the situation had not improved one bit and the enforcement of the law still awaited the building up of necessary infrastructure.

"The state shall expedite arrangements for providing the requisite infrastructure and report to the court," the Supreme Court order then said. In the present judgement, the Supreme Court noted that 12 years have gone by and the action taken by the government is still "to be ascertained".

Therefore, the implementation of the Act should be further deferred. For the moment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Acts. After nearly two decades, at least a constitutional point has been decided.

The situation of tribunals and other decision-making bodies is no better. Two years ago, in J J Merchant vs Shrinath Chaturvedi, the apex court had asked the governments to provide "proper infrastructure" to consumer forums.

But many of them still go without proper halls, stationery and staff. There are petitions pending in the Supreme Court raising the issues of infrastructure and facilities required by subordinate courts and tribunals.

Perhaps things might improve only when more leaders experience first-hand the slow mills of justice.