India’s Judicial System and the Slackening Cog of Trust
Abstract
Lacking trust in the judicial system has become a cause for discussion that there is nobody for taking a fair decision and no one gives us justice. Judges become greedy. They can make wrong decisions and punish innocent people for their own sake by taking bribes from criminals. Judicial corruption leads to the failure of procedural justice as well as to some extent substantive justice. It is on justice that the ordering of society is centred. Yet, a vast majority of countries have highly corrupt judiciaries.
Introduction
Judicial Corruption takes two forms: Political Interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch, and bribery. Despite the accumulation of evidence on corrupt practices, the pressure to rule in favour of political interests remains intense. Along with judges who refuse to comply, political retaliation can be swift as well as harsh.
Bribery can occur throughout the chain of the judicial process. Judges may accept bribes to delay or accelerate verdicts, accept or deny appeals, or simply decide a case in a certain way. Court officials coax bribes for free services. As well as the lawyers charge additional “fees” to expedite or delay cases.
Our focus here is on the functioning of and erosion of trust in the lower judiciary comprising High Courts, and District and Sessions Courts. Many outdated laws have not been repealed because of the tardiness of legal reform both at the Union and State government levels.
There have been blatant violations of constitutional provisions. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (December 2019); provides citizenship to — except Muslims — Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014. But this flies in the face of secularism and is thus a violation of substantive justice.
A striking example of tortuous delay in the delivery of justice is the case of Lal Bihari. He was officially declared dead in 1975, struggling to prove that he was alive (though deceased in the records). He was finally declared alive in 1994 (Debroy, 2021). Thus, both departures from substantive and procedural justice need deep scrutiny.
Alongside procedural delays, endemic corruption and mounting shares of under-trial inmates with durations of three to five years point to stark failures of procedural justice and to some extent of substantive justice.
Understanding the Substantive and Procedural Justice
Substantive Justice is associated with whether the statutes, case law and unwritten legal principles are morally justified e.g., freedom to pursue any religion,
Procedural Justice is associated with fair as well as impartial decision procedures.
Case Pendency
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of April 12, 2017, there are 24,186,566 pending cases in India’s district courts. Out of which, 2,317,448 (9.58%) have been pending for over 10 years, and 3,975,717 (16.44%) have been pending for between 5 and 10 years.
As of December 31, 2015, there were 4,432 vacancies in the posts of [subordinate court] judicial officers. Representing about 22% of the sanctioned strength. In the case of the High Courts, 458 of the 1,079 posts. Representing 42% of the sanctioned strength, were vacant as of June 2016. Thus, severe backlogging and understaffing persisted, along also archaic and complex procedures of delivery of justice.
Exercise of extra-constitutional authority by the Central as well as State Governments. Weakening of accountability mechanisms, widespread corruption in the lower judiciary and the police, with likely collusion between them. The perverted beliefs of the latter towards Muslims, other minorities and lower-caste Hindus. A proclivity to deliver instant justice, extra-judicial killings, and filing FIRs against innocent victims of mob lynching have left deep scars on the national psyche.
Written By: Ashi Dubey
Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com
