M J Antony: The wheels of justice grind slowly

OUT OF COURT

Though the Supreme Court has cut down its holidays, the pace of disposing of cases is still at variance with the promises held out by successive Chief Justices of India.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court disposed of one of the oldest cases in the country's history and lamented that some people were taking the law into their own hands because of the delay in the system.

This particular suit, filed in 1947, involved a dispute over Rs 7,000 worth of dry fish. The Supreme Court found the facts too complicated, stretching over 60 years, and therefore divided the property into two equal shares between the contending parties.

In this judgement, Moses Wilson vs Kasturiba, as well as in another delivered in August this year, Rajindra Singh (dead) vs Prem Mai, the court expressed its deep anguish at the loss of faith in the judiciary leading to incidents like the lynching of suspected thieves and the gunning down of an undertrial prisoner outside a court.

The judges had criminal cases in mind while they shed tears at the pace at which courts dispensed justice. However, the record of cases in company law, insurance, labour, land acquisition or even in special courts are not heartening either.

The delays in these fields do not result in the spilling of blood in the streets, but they certainly add to the degree of corruption in the economy. The judge who handed down the decision in the 'dry fish' case was recently heard saying in the court that the corrupt should be publicly hanged.

A survey of the judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in the past one month would show that the court's anxiety over the "alarming state of affairs" is equally relevant to corporate and economic cases.

One such was Meghal Homes vs Shree Niwas Girni Samiti. In 1984, the company court in Mumbai had passed a winding up order and appointed an official liquidator for the sprawling textile mill. After a decade-long pause, there was a revival bid in 1994 followed by further litigation up to the Bombay high court. Now the Supreme Court has remanded the matter to the high court asking the company court to call a meeting of the sponsors of a scheme. The high court will then consider the proposals and accept modifictions if they are in tune with the observations of the Supreme Court and the high court.

A typical labour case raising the question of equal pay for equal work travelled twice to the Supreme Court in two decades. In the first round of Canteen Mazdoor Sabha vs Metallurgical Engg Consultants (1987), the court drafted the questions to be decided by the industrial tribunal. The case, however, returned to the apex court two years ago, and the judgement came a few weeks ago. The claimants have lost.

The appeals in tax cases now being heard by the Supreme Court often go back to the assessment years three decades ago. Meanwhile, new rules have been issued and amendments and notifications have changed the scenario. These provoke another round on the retrospective and prospective impact of the amendments. In all these cases, either the government is losing revenue or the assessee is unnecessarily facing harassment.

A tenancy dispute from West Bengal, Rozan Mian vs Tahera Begum, started in 1974. The trial court decree was delivered in 1990, the high court upset it in 2003. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal a month ago as the law had changed in 1981. A partition case, Kirpal Kaur vs V M Singh, originating in 1975 led to a consent decree in 1993, but revived to wind its way up to the Punjab & Haryana high court in 2000. Now the Supreme Court has sent it back to the executive court with a request that the execution proceeds may be disposed of at an early date in view of the long history of the dispute.

A land acquisition case of 1992 (Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana) led to 15 years of litigation which ended a few days ago in the Supreme Court. The National Insurance Company fought over 10 years in a motor accident compensation case in National Insurance Company vs Anjana Shyam.

Special courts were set up to speed up the trial. But the court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 1992 is still active and has not disposed of many cases born around that year. Recently it declared that intervention applications were not maintainable before the special court in Tax Recovery Officer vs Custodian. Thus the case goes on.

As part of the cleaning up operation, the Supreme Court has cut down its holidays and three benches sat during the summer to clear the backlog. However, the pace at which the disposal is taking place is not in accordance with the promises held out by successive Chief Justices of India.