Public Interest Foundation (PIF), our NGO, had been following the issue of unnecessary adjournments for a long time and on its own accord decided to scrutinise the date of notification, for effectiveness, of the amendment act. PIF filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Legal Department to know the current status of the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008. A reply was received stating clearly that all the sections of the said Amendment Act have already been notified for enforcement through two consecutive notifications issued on December 30, 2009 and October 30, 2010.
Observance of this specific amendment numbered 21(b) in the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008, referring to Section 309 of the principal Act, directed to be observed by all courts at all levels, can mark a significant step forward in addressing the pendency of justice delivery in India. But unless there is an established reliable mechanism for being able to monitor the compliance to the specified clause, which can greatly impact the timely disposal of cases by denying adjournment on baseless grounds, the entire relevance of the amendment would be nullified. PIF filed another RTI application to the Supreme Court as well as the MHA to know if any monitoring arrangements/practices/review had been put in place to ensure compliance to the specific provisions for denial of adjournment in the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008. In this RTI application we also requested that findings for the years 2011 and 2012 be shared if some review exercise had been undertaken in regard to this subject of denial of adjournments.
Also Read
This particular RTI application was summarily rejected by Public Information Officer (PIO), SC stating that 'the information sought is subjective interpretation of the issue and it was clearly beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the CPIO, SC, hence the request is not covered under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005'. The MHA replied stating specifically, "That the Information sought ... pertains to the Supreme Court of India, a copy of your RTI application has been forwarded to them to provide you necessary information under RTI Act, 2005." PIF filed an appeal with the SC. Our appeal was also rejected. The law ministry has been holding consultations with the SC to urge the latter to ensure that the amendments made under Section 309 of CrPC be implemented. The point to ponder is that if the attitude of shifting responsibilities continues between judiciary and executive in the case of taking ownership for executing already existing remedies, then who can we as a nation look up to for over-hauling the entire system to ensure speedy delivery of justice to the common man?
The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in 2007 clearly stated the unequivocal need for reforms in the criminal justice system, emphasising swift trial as one of the most important pre-requisites, and this urgency was rightly called for. If one looks at the rate of pendency of cases in SC since the 1950s, it has either exceeded or has been equivalent to the rate of disposal of cases; and when the state of affairs is so alarming at the top of the hierarchy of the Indian judicial system, then one can only start to imagine the plight and pace of justice delivery in subordinate courts.
Former Chief Justice of India Justice Y K Sabharwal in 2006 also made several suggestions to expedite disposal of cases in courts, like carrying out a Judicial Impact Assessment of each new legislation and making appropriate provisions for resources for augmentation of the judiciary; adopting case management techniques which include identifying key issues in a case; deciding the order in which the issues are to be resolved; fixing a time table for parties to take specific steps; adopting court management techniques; strengthening the regular use of Alternate Dispute Resolution methods; video conferencing; setting up fast track subordinate courts; adopting discretionary prosecution; using modern means of communication for service of summons; conducting pre-trial hearings; enlarging the list of compoundable offences; and submission of a 'Statement of Prosecution' followed by a 'Statement of Defence'. More recently, in 2012-13, in reference to the Delhi rape case, another set of novel recommendations were publicly debated, like the charge-sheet and documents being supplied in electronic form, video-recording of court proceedings and government/government bodies/undertakings donning the role of responsible litigants and not resorting to litigation for the sake of litigating - as was also suggested in the 2010 National Litigation Policy.
From the lackadaisical approach of merely blaming the other for deterioration of the system of justice delivery, as is seen in adoption and implementation of the CrPC (Amendment) Act 2008, it is quite clear that though suggestions for fast-tracking justice delivery exist, missing is the gumption to execute and monitor these suggestions to ensure that they live up to the envisioned purpose.
Misra is ex-Chairman, TRAI and Director, Public Interest Foundation. Singh is a Research Associate at PIF