In my last column, while discussing the negative role of advocates towards speedy disposal of cases, I had also mentioned the formulation of such laws by the legislature that minimise the role of advocates in court proceedings.
In this context, the judicial system is also not untouched as invariably the adjournment applications are taken lightly. In initial phases of the proceedings, these are allowed because none of the parties raises any objection and the courts have no option but to accept these adjournments. Later, when the applications are opposed by one party, these are allowed with imposition of a nominal cost. The real problem arises when advocates become party to the adjournment applications and move these on personal grounds. When such applications are rejected, it results in annoyance, dismay and conflict; and in order to avoid all this, the court officers deal with them with laxity. I remember that when I had to confront such situations, my seniors used to advise me to deal tactfully and try to avoid any confrontation with the Bar. It is also experienced that to avoid controversy, sometimes the judicial officers don’t try technical cases and feel relaxed when adjournments are moved.
At times the parties are so charged that they get orders from superior courts for expeditious disposal of their cases and if a court fixes three or four such cases in a day, the entire day is exhausted in dealing with these. Though the courts are duty-bound to disposal of cases as early as possible, when such directions are given to the courts below, then the officers take interest in only those matters, which adversely affects the disposal of other cases.
It’s needless to say here that the huge pendency of cases is also one of the major reasons for automatic adjournment of cases. The lawmakers have tried to put checks on such frequent adjournments and made amendments in procedural code but as interpreted by the courts, these provisions are not mandatory and also not very emphatic. To cite an example, whenever a civil suit is filed by a plaintiff, its reply or written statement is to be filed by the other party within 30 days after receiving summons, in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Another 90 days’ time can be given by the courts to file written statement/reply, as held by the apex court in the Bharat Kalra versus Raj Kishan case.
The Supreme Court further held that in normal cases, the court can increase this time depending from case to case as the time limit for filing a written statement is only a guideline rather than a necessity. Now the advocates feel free to move for adjournments as a right to get the time of 120 days. Even after 120 days, they feel under no obligation to honour the law of the land and act towards speedy trial of the case.
There are also times when the courts try to implement the law for expeditious disposal of cases, they face unpleasant charges; sometimes with serious consequences. Unless the courts feel protected in the matters of adjournments, an effective control of these cannot be found. This may be one of the reasons that the courts do not feel comfortable while dealing with adjournments effectively. There is a need to come out of this helplessness or compulsion with a view to expediting the cases in the interest of justice.
It is also crucial to note that in most of the cases, the state is the largest litigant and plays an important role in delaying cases. This will be discussed in the next write-up.
