I am afraid, I am taking a break.

My attention was captured by a news clipping on a national news channel, a couple of days back. The news channel projected the menace caused by the wayward bikers who were risking their own lives as well those of the passers by. They were shown to have converted a busy road in a high security zone into a circus ring. The channel condemned the police inaction in the matter.

Today, the channel is showing its update. One biker has been killed by police bullet while another is hospitalised.

What makes me to take a pause from my currently targetted subject in the posts on dead woods in the judiciary, is that the presence of the dead woods is somewhat a universal phenomenon, as the news story under reference persuades me to infer.

Let me outline the inputs which require analysis.

First of all, take a look at the manner in which the news story is projected by the electronic media.

The projection calls into question police action, questioning whether the biker's offence was so serious as to receive death penalty, though the media simultaneously gave a tell tale picture of the stone pelting on police van which was badly damaged.

It is evident that the electronic media is not interested in an objective presentation of the episode. It presented a clipping in which the mother of the victim was shown weeping and questioning the police action, but the media did not show any diligence about asking the grieving family how the fact escaped their attention what their young son was doing with his bike at 2 AM when it was time for the other members to sleep.

Secondly, be it the electronic media or the police, why it does not shock any one when disorder rules the roost on main thorough fares.

The electronic media gave its answer, stating that as and when the police tried to apprehend the hoodlums doing dangerous feats on road at odd hours on the main thorough fares, police found itself handicapped, as the bikers would defeat the police by speed.

It is here that dead woods need to be identified among the mediamen as also among the police.

The police has the power, better say duty, not just power, to lodge a case. No matter if the offender is unknown or unidentified. A case against unknown can be filed which police may supplement with facts and identification at subsequent stage of investigation.

This is equally true even in case of illegal road jams which small places like Bhagalpur frequently witnesses without the police discharging the above obligation and duty. 

This power is, however, exercised at the whims of the administration, as was done some years ago at or near Arrah in Bihar when a train was damaged by the angry without ticket passengers who aggressively reacted against magistrate checking.

It is time that dead woods are clearly identified in all segments, especially in the media and police, whose imbecility corrupts objective perception of the viewers.

Who is a dead wood in the subordinate judiciary which the Apex Court is inclined to prune ? 

Before finding an answer, it is felt advisable to state that the Apex Court has no direct power of superintendence on the subordinate judiciary. The constitution confers that power on the High Court under Article 227. Pursuant thereto, High Court exercises that power   suo motu as well as upon invocation. An application under Article 227 of the constitution is entertainable under High Court's writ jurisdiction.These days this power of superintendence invoked in matters where civil revision is barred under Section 115 CPC. The 2002 amndment in CPC has shrunk the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, hence where ends of justice so requires, the power of superintendence is invoked to seek relief which the unamended CPC earlier provided.

This article comes handy in seeking High Court’s intervention in matters where the trial court’s lapses in disposing of cases is brought to High Court’s notice and a direction is sought.

Suffice it to say that the power of superintendence is exercised by the High Court in the above said two broad categories, suo motu and when invoked. The former is a routine practice, the latter is not.

The High Court maintains an inspection cell .Each District is allotted to one of its judges who conducts periodical inspection of the district court under its allotment.

It is this routine inspections in which deadwoods may be identified and pruned.

However, the Apex Court’s vision in the above regard does not seem to have descended in the manner expected.

The next posts are proposed to be dedicated to the above cause.  

‘National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) for Enhancing Timely Justice.

A Judicial officer who is unfit, ineffective, incompetent or has doubtful integrity,inefficient and of questionable integrity, fall within the definition of dead wood, responsible for the justice delivery system's failure to deliver. So,  the first step has already been taken in proper  direction, to remove “deadwood" , who may be retired from service even before his continued utility is assessed in terms of directions of the review of judicial officers’ service records, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant material at the age of 50 and 55 years will be in addition to the assessment being carried out at the age of 58 years.
The previous post offers a clear glimpse in the above regard. The Apex Court's initiative in the above regard may further be viewed in conjunction with Apex Court's subsequent initiative. The following import from the official website of the Ministry of Law&Justice, at the behest of the Apex Court, captioned as the Scheme of ‘National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) for Enhancing Timely Justice, which is founded on the ‘NCMS Policy & Action Plan’ document released by the CJI on 27.9.2012.
A cursory reading would make the picture clear:- 

" India has one of the largest judicial systems in the world – with over 3 crore cases and sanctioned strength of some 18,871 Judges (as on 31.12.2011). The system has expanded rapidly in the last three decades, reflecting India’s social, economic and political development in this period. It is estimated that the number of Judges/Courts expanded six fold while the number of cases expanded by double that number – twelve fold. The judicial system is set to continue to expand significantly over the next three decades, rising, by the most conservative estimate, to at least about 15 crore of cases requiring at least some 75,000 Courts/Judges.
There is an urgent need to make the Judicial System ‘five plus free’ (i.e., free of cases more than five years old). There is an equally urgent need to shorten the average life cycle of all cases – not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the judicial system as a whole, to bring the average to no more than about one year in each court.  There is also need to systematically maintain and continuously seek to enhance quality and responsiveness of justice.
To meet all these challenges facing the Judiciary effectively, the Chief Justice of India, after consulting the Minister of Law and Justice in the Government of India, established the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) in May this year and recently released a ‘Policy & Action Plan’ document to implement it. The National Court Management Systems will be under overall control of  the Chief Justice of India. It will primarily deal with policy issues. NCMS will include the following six main elements:
(1)        A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) that will set measurable performance standards for Indian courts, addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and timeliness;
(2)        A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters established in the NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness;
(3)        A system of Case Management to enhance user friendliness of the Judicial System;
(4)        A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country. NSJS should provide real time statistics on cases and courts that will enable systematic analysis of key factors such as quality, timeliness and efficiency of the judicial system across courts, districts/states, types of cases, stages of cases, costs of adjudication, time lines of cases, productivity and efficiency of courts, use of budgets and financial resources. It would enhance transparency and accountability;
(5)        A Court Development Planning System that will provide a framework for systematic five year plans for the future development of the Indian judiciary. The planning system will include individual court development plans for all the courts; and
(6)        A Human Resource Development Strategy setting standards on selection and training of judges of subordinate courts.
The administrative and technological “backbone” of these systems will be maintained at the Supreme Court and overseen by a Committee consisting of the representatives.
Specific proposals will be developed in each of these areas for consideration and implementation by and through the High Courts.
National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.):
Specific proposals for the Court Management System as outlined above will be developed by an 18 member National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.), which, subject to directions of  the Chief Justice of India, shall consist of the following:
Chair:
A Jurist/Domain Expert nominated by the Chief Justice of India. He will be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by the Chief Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C.
Accordingly, Prof. (Dr.) G. Mohan Gopal, former Director, National Judicial Academy, a Jurist, has been nominated by the CJI to be the Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee. Prof. Mohan Gopal will also be Member of the Advisory Committee.
Members:
1.    Four Sitting Judges (one from each zone in India) nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
2.    Secretary General of the Supreme Court (ex-officio).
3.    Joint Secretary and Mission Director (National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms), Department of Justice, Government of India (ex-officio).
4.    Registrar Generals of three High Courts nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
5.    Director, National Judicial Academy.
6.    Two practising Advocates nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
7.    An expert Statistician, nominated by the Chief Statistician of India.
8.    An expert in management of decision making systems and process re-engineering, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
9.    An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
10.   A representative of a NGO working for improving access to     justice and user friendliness of courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
11.  Additional Registrar, Information and Statistics, Supreme Court of India (ex-officio) – Member Secretary.
            Accordingly, the following were nominated by the CJI as Members of the NCMSC:
(a)          Shi Justice D. Murugesan;
(b)          Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar;
(c)          Shri Justice Amitava Roy;
(d)          Shri Justice B.D. Ahmed; 
(e)          Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat;
(f)           Registrar General, Calcutta High Court; and
(g)          Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.
The Committee shall be supported by necessary staff and facilities.
·         Advisory Committee:
The NCMS Committee is to be advised by an Advisory Committee consisting of two Judges of Supreme Court of India and such other Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts as may be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The Chair of the NCMS Committee shall be a member of the Advisory Committee. Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of India, shall be Ex-officio Member of Advisory Committee and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court shall be the convenor of the Advisory Committee.
Accordingly, the following were nominated to be the Members of the Advisory Committee:
(a)                  Shri Justice Altamas Kabir, currently the Chief Justice of India;
(b)                  Shri Justice P. Sathasivam, Judge, Supreme Court of India; and
(c)                  Shri Justice P. C. Tatia, Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court.
All expenses in connection with the functioning of the NCMS, including salary and allowances, etc., of the Staff, will be met from the sanctioned Budget of the Supreme Court of India.
                                                ----------------------

Before embarking on our targetted topic, it is expedient to cite a couple of news items. The following news clippings will facilitate easy appreciation of our point of view:-




CJI recommends removal of deadwood of lower judiciary
DH News Service, New Delhi:

Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan has recommended the Union government for the removal of judges of the lower courts who are “unfit, ineffective, incompetent or have doubtful integrity.” 

In a letter to the Union government, Justice Balakrishnan said: “A Judicial officer who is unfit, ineffective, incompetent or has doubtful integrity may be retired from service even before his continued utility is assessed in terms of directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case.” 


Union Law Minister H R Bharadwaj on Friday, in a written reply, informed the Lok Sabha that in a letter on October 14, the CJI had said that if implemented in right earnest, “such a provision will keep deviant behaviour in check, besides getting rid of those who are found to be indolent, ineffective or with doubtful integrity”. 

“A review on the lines of the provisions contained in Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental rules, be carried out firstly when judicial officers attain the age of 55 years. This would be in addition to the assessment being carried out at the age of 58 years in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case,” the minister said. 

He also informed the Lok Sabha that the CJI in his letter dated April 7, had also requested the government to set up 69 additional special courts for trial of corruption cases investigated by the CBI, a request which Bharadwaj said was under consideration. 

The CJI wrote: “Such a measure could be taken after reviewing the service records of judicial officers when they attain the age of 50 and 55 years with a view to weed out those with doubtful integrity.” “Pre-mature retirement is not a stigma and no civil consequences follow such requirement,” he said, adding that review of judicial officers’ service records, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant material at the age of 50 and 55 years will be in addition to the assessment being carried out at the age of 58 years.


CJI recommends removal of deadwood of lower judiciary
Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan has recommended the Union government for the removal of judges of the lower courts who are unfit, ineffective, incompetent or have doubtful integrity.” In a letter to the Union government, Justice Balakrishnan said: A Judicial officer who is unfit, ineffective, incompetent or has doubtful integrity may be retired from service even before his continued utility is assessed in terms of directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association




Integrity axe falls on three J&K judges

OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Srinagar, June 7: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has sacked three senior district judges on charges of inefficiency and questionable integrity, the move seen as the first step to remove “deadwood” from the state’s subordinate judiciary.

The trio who have been prematurely retired are: Brij Mohan Gupta, principal district and sessions judge in Doda; Muzaffar Iqbal Qureshi, additional district judge, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act, Srinagar; and Shakti Kumar Gupta, principal district and sessions judge in Kargil.

Qureshi was to retire next year, Brij Mohan Gupta in 2015 and Shakti Kumar Gupta in 2016. “They were declared deadwood,” a senior court official said.

Another official said the decision was taken at a “full court meeting” headed by Chief Justice M.M. Kumar on June 2 following the recommendation of an administrative committee tasked with assessing judges.

Both officials requested anonymity as neither was authorised to talk to the media.

Sources said only a handful of judges had earlier been sacked in the state, the last instance coming more than two decades ago.

One reason behind the latest decision appears to be the growing backlog of cases in the state’s courts. The sources said more than 80,000 cases were pending with the high court and another 1.9 lakh with subordinate courts.

“They (the three judges) were assessed on the basis of efficiency and integrity,” the first court official said. He said the trio’s “integrity was suspect” although there was no specific complaint against any of them.“It is the first major step (of its kind in the state). It is going to send a loud and clear message that there is no room for deadwood in the judiciary,” the official said.



 E-mail this
 Comments
 Print Article
May 1, 1969 
Law's Delays and Law Reporting
by JEditor

Cite as : (1969) 1 SCC (Jour) 7
1. The recent Shri B.N. Rao Memorial Lectures, delivered by the learned Chief Justice of India, Mr M. Hidayatullah on 'Judicial Methods' have focussed public attention on the problems of Law's delays, the utility of the principle of Stare decisis, the desirability of having an efficient system of law reporting and kindred matters.

2. One must agree with His Lordship when he says that the Judge's role is essentially legal, to deal out justice in accordance with law and not to be carried away by any extraneous considerations, based on moral or political factors.

(i) The basic reason for Law's delays

3. One wishes His Lordship had also made special reference to the adage "Brevity is the soul of life", in his dissertation on 'Judicial Methods'. Much of courts' time is wasted in allowing long-winded arguments for days and days on matters, which, however intricate and important, can nevertheless be condensed into at least a few hours of argumentation. The Judges also vie with lawyers in the race for longishness by writing ponderous and verbose judgments covering sometimes over a hundred pages! The proverbial Law's Delays are thus not only due to the fetish for granting too many adjournments on insufficient grounds, but also to the longishness of the entire proceedings wherein the lawyer and Judge contribute their good share in allowing the lengthy arguments and lengthy judgments all contributing to the great bulk of the record which in its turn makes it indeed a task for honest law reporting with ideals of crispness and brevity and speed.

4. Law's delays are sufficiently aggravated by the tendency of Judges to revel too much in case-law and verbosity. One commentator Mr G.D. Khosla recently adverted to these aspects in The Times of India and pithily said: "A Judge's time is valuable. It should be employed in deciding cases and not in arguing them at inordinate length. The law reports contain numerous instances of long and involved judgments written by Honourable Judges. Even the Judges of the Supreme Court are tempted to do this. A practice has grown up of Supreme Court Judges comprising a Bench writing individual judgments. Since the Supreme Court finally declares the law which is binding on all courts in India, it would be less confusing and more helpful if only one judgment was written as is done by the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, even if one or two judges hold a view contrary to the majority of Judges."

5. We may, however add that a dissenting view must necessarily be expressed. But if in a Bench of seven Judges four Judges concur and three disagree, there is absolutely no need for the concurring or the dissenting Judges to write separate individual judgments ranging from four to seven judgments. They can be easily restricted to two or at the most three judgments—one, the majority view, the other expressing the minority opinion and a third (which may be avoided too) giving separate reasonings in coming to the same conclusion as the majority. If this were done, the law will be more clear and precise, capable of being understood by the subordinate courts. Further, the load on law reporting will be lessened and the resulting citations before courts of these precedents will take considerably less time. Shri G.D. Khosla's criticism may be given due consideration when he says that the "Judge's desire to make a show of erudition, indulging in avoidable causistry, laying down the law for all posterity and the passion for immortality must be firmly controlled. Unfortunately judges are prone to forget that they are listners and arbiters and not talkers and practitioners of the art of verbosity".

(ii) Law reporting and Central Control

6. His Lordship the learned Chief Justice M. Hidyatullah meant well in offering a suggestion. He said "our addiction to reporting all decisions of the superior courts, has made the judicial method in India more complicated than it need be. With the existence of numerous High Courts and many tribunals all reporting their decisions, the discovery of what the law is at any given moment, is a matter of considerable difficulty and some of gamble. One is tempted to think whether reporting of cases should not be centrally controlled so that conflicts in the laws may be avoided . . . . Law Reporting should be controlled centrally so that law declared by different High Courts might become uniform and an unreported case should only be taken to decide a single controversy and not generally stating the law applicable to all cases. If this is done, the task of the judge will be immensely easier that it is today".

7. The remedy suggested by His Lordship is rather doubtful, in its utility. For one thing central control of law reporting may not be assented to by the various High Courts and the relevant State Governments, which later are now agitating more for the shedding of some of the Centre's powers on to the States. More than this, Central control of law reporting will be more time consuming adding to law's delays. As it is, the State Law Reports have a time-lag of at least three to four months for a case to be reported. If Centre's consent is to be taken there may be a further delay of one or two months. Delayed reporting is delaying the availability of precedents to the legal profession. It also in a way affects the long cherished independence of the High Courts in India, as Courts of record. If the High Court cannot decide what it should permit to report, it will indeed be ridiculous. If the Centre's machinery is the Supreme Court for controlling the High Court Reports, it would smack of an administrative revision of the High Court judgments as to what is reportable law. The suggestion is neither practical nor desirable.

(iii) The doctrine of Stare decisis

8. The doctrine of precedent appears to have been overplayed. We have to view the principle of Stare decisis and precedents in a rational and selective way. Apart from indiscriminate law reporting, a duty is cast on the courts to be meticulously selective in the application of the principle of stare desisis. No doubt, the doctrine of precedent has been established in Indian Jurisprudence1 conferring certain advantages like uniformity, certainty and avoidance of delays. But too much of a fetish for precedents in a manner, obstructs the free development of legal jurisprudence. Precedents while they may be good as general doctrine, if abused, will render law too technical, hidebound and narrow in its outlook. Even in England, the latest trend appears to be in the words of Lord Gardiner, L.C., who made a general statement in a decision of the House of Lords2: "Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding to depart from a previous decision when it appears necessary."

9. In India too, Judges of late are prone to discourage technical adherence to the tyranny of precedents for all conceivable positions. The trend is to recognise the fundamental and basic concepts in law as laid down in the recognised leading decisions of the highest courts of the land. Where the law is so settled, there is no need of getting into the cobweb of case-law around such a decision. Where, however, it is not so settled, then there is a need to evolve the law with certainity and authority with or without the aid of past experience in the decided cases. If the decided cases are canalised into a few selective cases, the problem of evolution of law becomes easier.

(iv) The need for revised Law Reports

10. This discussion naturally raises the question of the revision of our Law Reports as a method of reducing law's delays and Law's cost. It is because there has been no strict adherence to the rule as to what are reportable cases, we have now on hand nearly 4000 volumes of Law Reports (from 1872-1969) each volume consisting of nearly 150 to 300 cases according to the bulk of the volume. The following salient points are self revealing:

(i) Many of the cases reported in these innumerable volumes would be found obsolete and of no present day utility3;

(ii) Overlapping of reports apart, no series of Law Reports is complete in itself;

(iii) Overlapping of cases on the same points are too many;

(iv) It is impossible to own a complete set of all the Reports by any lawyer or court, for,—

(a) the cost is prohibitive,
(b) there are not enough sets available,
(c) there is no shelf-space in a lawyer's chamber or court hall to contain all the Reports. Nearly 50,000 lawyers and numerous courts in India work without a full set of Law Reports, due to prohibitive cost and want of accommodation in these days of ever-increasing population and congestion in cities or towns where courts of law function. The problem is more acute in cities where the High Courts of the land function and this is also in New Delhi where the Supreme Court of India functions.
11. It is therefore just and necessary that the average lawyer should be helped with a complete and compact set of Law Reports of India not exceeding hundred volumes at a moderate price. The set must embrace all decisions which can be positively accepted as very reliable and authoritative precedents on all subjects of law. This will also be a sure guide to all courts of justice. The modern urge of our politicians to have the entire law of the land in Hindi and other regional languages may also be in a way be facilitated by the condensation of our Law Reports from 4000 volumes to say 100 volumes or even less. Such a compact set of Reports can indeed be ever so useful—

(a) for purposes of translation of the entire law of precedents in Official Language of the Union and of the States in Bharat;

(b) for being an aid to translation of standard English treatises of law into the various languages of India;

(c) for enabling authors to write original treatises and textbooks on all legal subjects as envisaged by the recent decisions of the Union Education Commission and the Union Official Language (Legislative) Commission.

12. We would, therefore, earnestly urge that if law's delays have to be minimised the need for restricting citable precedents in courts of law appears very important. It would indeed be worthwhile if the Central Government undertakes this task right now of condensing the Reports (Supreme Court and High Courts) up till 1968 to a handy set of about 100 volumes. The cost involved is worthwhile as it will be met by a correspondingly lessening of costs involved in litigation and the Administration of Justice as a whole. Once these 100 volumes of Revised Law Reports are published, their cost even if it goes over a crore of rupees or more, can be recouped by the very sale of those volumes to lawyers and law libraries who will be only too ready to purchase them.

(v) Need for good drafting of laws

13. One other factor that is of some significance is reducing ligitation and law's delays is the need for good drafting of legislation. Much of Court's work is involved in hair-splitting arguments by the lawyer over the lacuna in the drafting legislation which lends to more than two interpretations. Apart from the need for manning the drafting section, of the law department with men of expertise and of proper calibre, it appears to be necessary to request a certain amount of restraint on the part of enthusiastic legislators who are prone to interfere in the Legislature, suggesting loosely and hastily drafted amendments to the draft Bill. The result is what emerges is an Act wholly truncated offering quite a new version of the original Bill, which verily is hailed as the lawyer's paradise!

(vi) Need for Judge of quality

14. A certain amount of restraint is also necessary on the part of the Government and the authority on whom the duty is cast in selecting and appointing Judges at various levels from the District Munsif to a Supreme Court Judge. It must be remembered that a good District Munsif of today is a potential High Court Judge of tomorrow. Direct recruitment to the high office of High Court Judge and Supreme Court Judge also requires the utmost consideration as to the calibre, capacity, intelligence, judicial poise, equanimity and legal erudition of the appointee to the exclusion of extraneous considerations as influence, caste or politics, etc. It is often said that bad judges make bad law and bad law breeds more litigation and more delay in the dispensation of justice. The 14th Report of the Law Commission of India of 1958 has adverted enough on this aspect but it is a tragedy that the Law Commission's recommendations on this score has yet to receive serious attention at Governmental level. One other significant factor is the Government's phenominal lethargy in filling up judicial vacancies or in recruiting more Judges when the huge pendency of cases justify quick recruitment. A certain desirable trend is necessary in Governmental spheres when authority will restrain itself from falling a prey to nepotism and political consideration vis-...-vis recruitment of the Judiciary.

(vii) Do's and don'ts to Judges and Lawyers

15. We have said enough of restraint is to be observed by legislators and the Government. A good deal of restraint is also due on the part of the judiciary and the legal profession if the objective of speedy dispensation of justice is to be achieved. The old adage that Justice delayed is Justice denied, is salutary. May be the critic may say hasty justice is no justice. But surely there must be a via-media where a good hearing is assured to both parties in the minimum of time and the judge pronounces a well-reasoned and not lengthy judgment without much delay.

We may usefully urge a certain number of Don'ts to the Judge and the Lawyer. To the Judge, we may say:

1. Please avoid needless adjournment of a case.

2. Please avoid lengthy judgments.

3. Please avoid verbose quoting from prior decisions, Indian or foreign.

4. Please desist from delivering a separate judgment when you can possibly concur with the judgment of your senior brother Judge.

5. Please do not make a fetish of precedents but be bold enough to state the first principles, stick to them and enunciate the law in the way needed for the dispensation of justice in a given case.

6. Though the doctrine of prospective overruling may be facinatingly handy, please avoid recourse to such a principle except in exceptional circumstances for very good and valid reasons.

To the Members of the Learned Legal Profession we may recommend:

1. Please avoid asking for adjournments unless it is absolutely necessary. The term 'absolutely' must be applied objectively and not subjectively.

2. Please shorten your cross-examination of witnesses as far as possible keeping in view your client's cause.

3. Please desist from being lengthy and verbose in your arguments.

4. Please avoid citing too many decisions by way of precedents.

We will cry a halt to these 'Don'ts' and only urge one 'Do' to both Judges and Lawyers.

"Do help in reducing Law's delays." Honorary Editor 


Vide M.C. Setalvad "The Common Law of India" (Hamlyn Lectures, pp. 47-50). Also Law Commission's 14th Report, p. 628. Return to Text
London Street Tramways v. London County Council, (1966) 1 WLR 124: 1966 AER 77. Return to Text
For Methodology of removing the Deadwood, see Indian Law Institute's Scheme for Revised Law Reports, 1962. Return to Text

NOMOCRACY (Rule of law).
Governance, based on the rule of law, rather than arbitrary will, terror, etc., is technically called NOMOCRACY.

What is its antonym? There is no need to waste time in searching or researching the antonym of nomocracy. We, in India, especially in backward state like Bihar are familiar with a collequal term, close to what we are searching. Mobocracy soon this term should find place in English Dictionaries.

Common man's ordeals  owe imensely to the conflict that result from the hypocrisy which our systems maintain to hide its progressive collapse. Which segment of the state is a major contributor to the increasing dwarfing of the rule of law by its unruly counterpart?  Legislature? Executive? Or Judiciary?

Those who have the inside view and access to the system would take no time to figure out who, how and wherefore. But this is not for public sharing, as it substantiation is not efficacious. All the same, an unsubstantiated inference would merit rejection, worthy of being labelled as a wild outpouring.

As such, a team of law students herein below dedicate their research but are in grief while by adjudging their own stream, the legal system, as the major contributor in promotion of mobocracy and in the simultaneous supplanting of nomocracy, the concept of the rule of law.


In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion" giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."
At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.


Rule according to law; rule under law; or rule according to a higher law.

The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.

Rule According to Law

The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. A distinction is sometimes drawn between power, will, and force, on the one hand, and law, on the other. When a government official acts pursuant to an express provision of a written law, he acts within the rule of law. But when a government official acts without the imprimatur of any law, he or she does so by the sheer force of personal will and power.

Under the rule of law, no person may be prosecuted for an act that is not punishable by law. When the government seeks to punish someone for an offense that was not deemed criminal at the time it was committed, the rule of law is violated because the government exceeds its legal authority to punish. The rule of law requires that government impose liability only insofar as the law will allow. Government exceeds its authority when a person is held to answer for an act that was legally permissible at the outset but was retroactively made illegal. This principle is reflected by the prohibition against Ex Post Facto Laws in the U.S. Constitution.

For similar reasons, the rule of law is abridged when the government attempts to punish someone for violating a vague or poorly worded law. Ill-defined laws confer too much discretion upon government officials who are charged with the responsibility of prosecuting or persecuting individuals for wrongdoing, whether criminal or civil. Most prosecutorial or persecutional decisions are based on the personal discretion of a government official. Long list of pending writ applications with unending volumes of fresh inpurs would bear testimony to this.

In the above backdrop, the subsequent posts would raise the curtain as to what the justice delivery system, in its existing state, has been contributing to the promotion of mobocracy, at the cost and peril of nomocracy, rule of law.

The law students doing court observation on the impact of S. 89 CPC have missed the point, because the law practitioners themselves are insensitive and indifferent. Let me make up the deficiency thereby ensuing.

Law and practice may not be consistent. Better say practice may not be consistent with law. Practice is just a rut which is created by usage. Law practitioners detest assuming the role of reformer. Their obvious goal is to do justice with the brief in hand. The practice they follow find orientation from the demand which the brief in hand calls for.

Now coming to S. 89 CPC, it is essential to state the contour which a civil proceeding traverses.

A civil suit commences with the presentation of Plaint ( which contains a suitor's grievances and reliefs sought).

Obviously, a litigant, i.e., Plaintiff,  files his suit upon being forced to the wall. After suit institution, his whole focus lies on either interim relief , but in absence thereof, on a speedy trial. But trial does not start off until the pre- trial hurdles are overcome, including several things like ensuring appearance of the parties sued, called Defendants, after effective service of summons, followed by the completion of the pre- trial stage, in the form of the filing of reply (called written statement) by the Defendants.

The above pre-trial process is quite tiring for the Plaintiff who has been in quest for his remedy by the legal process.

Now comes the next stage, where the pre-trial stage ends and the stage of trial arrives. The first step in that direction is the framing of issues, followed by adducing of evidence whereafter the case would be argued out and judgment would be passed.

The above description of the whole trial process has been given in a sweep, but in reality its pace is slower than the slowest pace one may imagine. Going by the present status, cases filed in the eighties and nineties are still pending. Why, is not that easy to explain in a short note.

Now coming back to the main issue, i.e., S.89 CPC, in reality its stage is no where difined, nor is trial court's hands fettered. It can invoke this provision as and when possibility of conciliation, compromise or mediation occurs in the opinion of the presiding officer.

However, fact remains that this aspect has been grossly overlooked by all concerned, by the litigants, lawyers, judicial officers as well as by high court's inspection cell .

In practice, the above provision is invoked at a very wrong stage, at the very commencement of the pre- trial stage.

The court would not frame issue unless the Plaintiff overcomes the hurdle of S. 89. The term 'hurdle' is that which Plaintiff, in quest for justice woul obviously feel if the suit proceeing gets shunted like a train until the red signal marked by S. 89 CPC is addressed, this way or that. Plaintiff better prefers 'this' and avoid 'that'. 'This' represents Plaintiff's routine petitioning that no settlement could be reached, hence court is requested to proceed. The term 'that' represents an unwise move to let the proceeding remain held up while possibility of settlement is explored, in which court's participationnis not minimal, rather it is wholly absent. 

That explains why the legislative intent stands defeated, about which no one seems concerned, much less responsible.

Now the moot question is, whether the legislative intent behindvS. 89 may be appreciated and made effective?

It is for the students to find out, by collecting legal opinion from the practising professionals whose scant regard for this pragmatic legislation is known too well.

To help the students in their above endeavour, I may post some more materials on the topic. Interested readers may, therefore, follow subsequent posts.

While dealing with the legislative intent behind the incorporation of a new provision vide S.89 CPC, it is fruitful to refer to a recent development in the form of the Scheme of ‘National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) for Enhancing Timely Justice*

 

India has one of the largest judicial systems in the world – with over 3 crore cases and sanctioned strength of some 18,871 Judges (as on 31.12.2011). The system has expanded rapidly in the last three decades, reflecting India’s social, economic and political development in this period. It is estimated that the number of Judges/Courts expanded six fold while the number of cases expanded by double that number – twelve fold. The judicial system is set to continue to expand significantly over the next three decades, rising, by the most conservative estimate, to at least about 15 crore of cases requiring at least some 75,000 Courts/Judges.

It has been realized at the apex level that there is an urgent need to make the Judicial System ‘five plus free’ (i.e., free of cases more than five years old). There is an equally urgent need to shorten the average life cycle of all cases – not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the judicial system as a whole, to bring the average to no more than about one year in each court.  There is also need to systematically maintain and continuously seek to enhance quality and responsiveness of justice.

To meet all these challenges facing the Judiciary effectively, the Chief Justice of India, after consulting the Minister of Law and Justice in the Government of India, established the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) in May this year and recently released a ‘Policy & Action Plan’ document to implement it. The National Court Management Systems will be under overall control of  the Chief Justice of India. It will primarily deal with policy issues. NCMS will include the following six main elements:

(1)        A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) that will set measurable performance standards for Indian courts, addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and timeliness;

(2)        A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters established in the NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness;

(3)        A system of Case Management to enhance user friendliness of the Judicial System;

(4)        A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country. NSJS should provide real time statistics on cases and courts that will enable systematic analysis of key factors such as quality, timeliness and efficiency of the judicial system across courts, districts/states, types of cases, stages of cases, costs of adjudication, time lines of cases, productivity and efficiency of courts, use of budgets and financial resources. It would enhance transparency and accountability;

(5)        A Court Development Planning System that will provide a framework for systematic five year plans for the future development of the Indian judiciary. The planning system will include individual court development plans for all the courts; and

(6)        A Human Resource Development Strategy setting standards on selection and training of judges of subordinate courts.

The administrative and technological “backbone” of these systems will be maintained at the Supreme Court and overseen by a Committee consisting of the representatives.

Specific proposals will be developed in each of these areas for consideration and implementation by and through the High Courts.

National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.):

Specific proposals for the Court Management System as outlined above will be developed by an 18 member National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.), which, subject to directions of  the Chief Justice of India, shall consist of the following:

Chair:

A Jurist/Domain Expert nominated by the Chief Justice of India. He will be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by the Chief Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C.

Accordingly, Prof. (Dr.) G. Mohan Gopal, former Director, National Judicial Academy, a Jurist, has been nominated by the CJI to be the Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee. Prof. Mohan Gopal will also be Member of the Advisory Committee.

Members:

1.    Four Sitting Judges (one from each zone in India) nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.

2.    Secretary General of the Supreme Court (ex-officio).

3.    Joint Secretary and Mission Director (National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms), Department of Justice, Government of India (ex-officio).

4.    Registrar Generals of three High Courts nominated by the Chief Justice of India.

5.    Director, National Judicial Academy.

6.    Two practising Advocates nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.

7.    An expert Statistician, nominated by the Chief Statistician of India.

8.    An expert in management of decision making systems and process re-engineering, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.

9.    An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.

10.   A representative of a NGO working for improving access to     justice and user friendliness of courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India.

11.  Additional Registrar, Information and Statistics, Supreme Court of India (ex-officio) – Member Secretary.

            Accordingly, the following were nominated by the CJI as Members of the NCMSC:

(a)          Shi Justice D. Murugesan;

(b)          Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar;

(c)          Shri Justice Amitava Roy;

(d)          Shri Justice B.D. Ahmed; 

(e)          Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat;

(f)           Registrar General, Calcutta High Court; and

(g)          Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.

The Committee shall be supported by necessary staff and facilities.

·         Advisory Committee:

The NCMS Committee is to be advised by an Advisory Committee consisting of two Judges of Supreme Court of India and such other Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts as may be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The Chair of the NCMS Committee shall be a member of the Advisory Committee. Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of India, shall be Ex-officio Member of Advisory Committee and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court shall be the convenor of the Advisory Committee.

Accordingly, the following were nominated to be the Members of the Advisory Committee:

(a)                  Shri Justice Altamas Kabir, currently the Chief Justice of India;

(b)                  Shri Justice P. Sathasivam, Judge, Supreme Court of India; and

(c)                  Shri Justice P. C. Tatia, Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court.

All expenses in connection with the functioning of the NCMS, including salary and allowances, etc., of the Staff, will be met from the sanctioned Budget of the Supreme Court of India.

                                                ----------------------

* Based on the ‘NCMS Policy & Action Plan’ document released by the CJI on 27.9.2012

KKP

 

(Release ID :88143)

 

This is an unchiselled version of a postulation on Material Technology vis a vis Spiritual Technology.

I am setting it afloat in a raw form, wholly unprocessed. Hence, errors and omissions are expected. Your forgiveness is solicited.

Think, whyis the former rapidly growing and latter is slow paced?

I invite questions on the net, but answer only competent ones, which benefit all, answering only general or generalized questions.
Think.

E(a) – (Human) Action.
E(G)- Gravitational Pull.
E(R/A)-Resistance/Accelleration.
E(4D)-The 4th dimensional component/factor.

Flashes of creativity – as in toilet. This is not kidding.

Throw/Release an object in the space. Ea is the energy component which the object is invested with.

Eg is the gravitational pull that operates on it.

Er/a is the resistance or acceleration that opearates on the object.

E4d shall be discussed later.

Imagine an object, released in the space, invested with a force Ea but bereft of or immune of the other two components, Eg & Ee/a. Obviously, the object would move on and on endlessly.
Imagine further, such object being release in an exactly horizontally, parallel to the horizon. As assumed above, there is neither an intervening gravitational pull nor any obstructive impediment to retard or hinder its movement (or to accelerate it).
Obviously, the object would orbit the globe, ultimately meeting the point from which it was released.
The above recitals are no postulation. It would stand any objective test, under the assumed parameters.  

Now, give a look to the object that we have assumed above. It is fundamentally a matter.
Matter has mass.
The mass is composed of swarms of energy. Bereft of its energy component, the mass ceases to be matter.

The object under our assumption is thus matter, having mass and is obviously constituted by the swarms of energy inbuilt therein.
So, let us substitute a finer expression for the assumed term, ‘object’. Call it the inbuilt energy component, for short, ‘E(in)’ or ‘Ein’.

Now let us reiterate the assumed facts, but after modifying the same by giving effect to the above substitution, substituting the expression, ‘E(in)’ or ‘Ein’ for the term ‘object’.

Thereby, it would read as stating the fact that when an energy….


Throw/Release an ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  in the space. Ea is the energy component the ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  is invested with.
Eg is the gravitational pull that operates on it.
Er/a is the resistance or acceleration that opearates on the ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle) .
E4d shall be discussed later.
Imagine an ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  released in the space, invested with a force Ea but bereft of or immune of the other two components, Eg & Ee/a. Obviously, the ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  would move on and on endlessly.
Imagine further, such ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  being release in an exactly horizontally, parallel to the horizon. As assumed above, there is neither an intervening gravitational pull nor any obstructive impediment to retard or hinder its movement (or to accelerate it).
Obviously, the ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle)  would orbit the globe, ultimately meeting the point from which it was released.
The above recitals are no postulation. It would stand any ‘E(ie)’ or ‘Eie’ (means swarms of energy inbuilt in a bundle) ive test, under the assumed parameters.  

The LL.B Part 3, Semester VI students, given court observation assignment for the clinical (practical) paper namely ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) are back, ready with their feed back.

They are under instruction to collect inputs regarding the impact of Section 89 CPC.

Section 89 CPC states that where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate terms of settlement and do other prescribed things including resolution by arbitration, conciliation, judicial resolution in lok adalat, mediation, etc.

The inputs which the students have collected are indeed astonishing. Lawyers whom the students contacted for the purpose expressed wonder why the students were after this practically defunct legal provision which the bar and the bench, both, prefer to bypass in a routine manner. In fact some students said that their query fetched lawyers' despising response, wondering the stupidity they perceived in law students', better say law academicians', lack of wisdom in prescribing such a topic of no practical use for practical or clinical paper.

Even the students seem to have been overwhelmed by remorse that they ventured out with such an imbecile assignment.

The above narrations are intended at offering an insight into what does not, ordinarily, meet the eye, whereas the legal segment is generally credited with extraordinary capabilities, especially the ability to interpret even obscure things.

Firstly, it may be seen that the legislative intents behind the above legal provision has received scant regard from the bar and the bench alike. Why? No one has time to waste over this poser. Not even the law students, who have received no encouragement from the legal practioners in the matter.

Secondly,even the legal practioners did not consider it worth while to help the students in developing an indepth court observation on the above subject. Mind application on off beat subject is not their cup of tea, it seems.

The students have not even been helped in  gathering the actual state of affairs in the matter, hence the teacher has taken upon himself the tedious task of enlightening the students with an insight to prepare their project in a manner as to be realistic, objective and critical.

The first and the foremost clue whiich the students have been given is to read S. 89 with intently, word by word, without skipping important message and meaning each word carries.

The  words and expression, 'where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of settlement which may be acceptable to the parties ........' is important.

The above expression does not disclose the stage of a proceeding when S. 89 CPC must or must not be applied, for the expression, ''where it appears to the Court" , does not limit nor confine the stage of its invocation by the court. As such, its invocation may or may not arise, much less at any specific stage.

However, in practice, this provision is treated as something akin to stumbling block. Why so? 

This is precisely what the students failed to make outvdue to lackadaisical response they received in their court observation exercise.

Now that the students are duly briefed, they are unlikely to return empty handed, as before.    More importantly, their investigation may startle those who have still not comprehended the mediocrity that besets the justice delivery system.

The following reaction has been just received.. Though unfortunate, I can not resist, posting it. It states as below:-

"Was sad reading about the ordeals of the lady from Ranchi. 

We are paying our price for being born in India ---worst still –find ourselves doomed being born in Bihar".

It is for the participants to agree or disagree.

Prof. DhirendranKumar Sinha, retired as University Professor in the Faculty of PG Political Science, Bhagalpur University. He accessed this blog and is all praise for the issues addressed under the caption, 'ordeals that stare', in which the Fire Station short story is a reflection on the sluggish justice delivery system.
However, he finds nothing new in it, terming it as old wine in a new bottle.
Cry hoarse against the general failure perceptible in the justice delivery system, itnwill not seem either new or novel. As if it is akin to stating that sun rises and sets. So what, we already know it. Why should that be told what goes without saying. This is precisely what Prof. Sinha states, in substance, without hiding his general appreciation for the efforts thus put in, in an area which does not require narrations of things already known too well.
Prof. Sinha's concern and resultant criticism is well placed. The same is indicative of general pessimism which the justice delivery system has engendered, without any sign of recovery or relief.
I have two points to make in this regard.
Firstly, the legal segment has been receiving scanty media attention, the lop sided media coverage notwithstanding. There is no coverage on main issues. Why so much of pendency? Who is addressing this problem and in what way? Is the system functioning at an optimum pace and, if not, why? So on and so forth. To be frank, the media is in the hands of law illiterates who consider the legal segment an out of bound area for critical evaluation. Court's contempt powers frighten the press, hence printed words fail to over step self assessed limitations, irrespective whether law supports that or not.
Secondly, there is a parallel scenario within the legal segment which completely refuses to take into account the above said general pessimism which the legal system has produced. It is the inside players who know it too well that their system failure is undeniable, but no one is there is acknowlege one's own contribution thereto.
In this regard, let me reiterate the story earlier posted. At the cost of repetition, i reproduce it, with intent to making the four characters of the story specific, vis a vis justice delivery system.
The story goes this way.







This is the story about four people named,
(i) Everybody,
(ii) Somebody,
(iii) Anybody, and
(iv) Nobody.

There was an important job to be done.

Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it.

Somebody got angry about that because , he thought, the said neglected and abandoned job was, in fact,  Everybody’s job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it.

But Nobody realized that Everybody would not do it.

It ended up at
Everybody blaming Somebody ,
when actually Nobody accused Anybody.
Everybody blaming Somebody,
when actually Nobody accused Anybody.

This gives a tell tale picture of those who matter in the legal segment. Those who have the power and resources to change the scenario, are inert, pleading this to be the role of some one else. In the process, rules are being circumvented and it is the common man who remains high and dry, at the receiving end. Experiential narration of their plight is thus expedient, which the media has callously omitted to do.
This precisely answers Prof. Sinha's  'whys' and  'wherefores', but if there still remains any more unanswered queries, this blog may come handy for that. Participation of Prof. Sinha and likes of him may thus be extremely useful.

Another reaction has come from Mrs. Mukul Das, who lost her husband in an accident. She was sitting in the car parked by the road side, her husband on the driving seat. The car was yet to push off, a speeding truck dashed. Her husband died on spot, she fell unconscious and the car was smashed. Mrs Das was airlifted from Ranchi to mumbai. She survives and endures the disability thus caused, he two legs underwent surgical operations.

The ranch Court repeatedly sought her attendance as witness in the case, refusing to allow her disability plea which merits examination on commission or even by video conferencing. Ultimately, unable to endure repeated calls by the issuance of arrest warrants, Mrs. Das had to take a flight from mumbai to Ranchi and appear in the court which overlooked her disability plea. Mrs. Das has been inspired by the 'ordeals that stare', and hereby contributes her write up, joining this blog as a Commoner in distress.

Thus goes her response:-

क़ानून एक एनबूझ पहेली है।जीवन भर व्यक्ति इसके दाँव पेंच में फँसा रहता है। मुझे न जाने कितने पापड़ बेलने पडे ़़़़हैं । याद आता है वो हादसा जिसमें मैंने अपना सबकुछ खोया । वो एक कार दुर्घटना थी । मेरे पति ही चला रहे थे ।किसी गाड़ी ने टकक्कर मारी ,जिसमें मैं तो उपर से नीचे तक अपने शरीर  की सारी हड्डीयाँ तुड़वा चुकी थी । पति ने न जाने कब आख़री साँस ली वो आज तक किसी को पता नहीं चल पाया है ।जीवन के सारे फ़लसफ़े  हाथों की उँगलियों की दरारों के बीच से रेत की मानिंद फिसल कर जब धरातल पर आये,तब तक सब कुछ लुट  चुका था । मुझे याद नहीं  मैं किस तरह  हवाई  जहाज़ द्वारा मुंबई  लाया गयी । तब कहाँ  पता था कि मैं कब की कानून के दायरे में आ चुकी हूँ । मैं यहाँ हीरानंदानी अस्पताल में जीवन से जूझ रही थी । वहाँ दूसरी आोर राँची  के मेरे मकान पर मेरे नाम का वारंट आ रहा था । लाख  मेडिकल सर्टिफ़िकेट  भेजे  जाने के बाद भी  कोट मानने को तैयार कहाँ था कि मैं उठ के बैठ भी नही सकती हूँ । कोट को मेरी गवाही चाहिये थी कि मैं उस हादसे के समय गाड़ी  में मौजूद थी । हम आग्रह कोट से करते रहे कि आप लोग ही किसी को भेज दीजिये  जो यहाँ आकर  मेरी गवाही ले सके , पर कोट कहाँ मानने को तैयार था । बार,बार वारंट आता रहा । ये कहाँ का न्याय  है । मैं  आज तक समझ नहीं पाई कि क़ानून के लिये क्या  सच क्या  झूठ । जिस व्यक्ति ने जीवन में कभी भी कानून के तहत लपेटा जाना,वारंट जैसी चीज़ों का सामना करना न जाना हो,जिसे आज तक किसी  ने इतना अपमानित न किया हो ,वो कैस अपनी सच्चाई  साबित करे ।क्या कानून के तहत कोइ ऐसा रास्ता  है। अब तो मेरे जीवन में कानून की परिभाषा  का कोइ मोल ही न रहा ।आज दामिनी का इतना बड़ा कांड कानून की खुली आँखो ं के सामने हुआ पर अगर फ़ैसले में कुछ सालों की सजा ही मंज़ूर  होती है तो क्या ये फ़ैसला  जायज़ था या है। कानून के दायरे मेंअगर सालों साल किसी निर्णय  को आने में लग जायें,उस बीच उसका सब कुछ दाँव पर लग जाता है,यानि वो ग़रीबी के दायरे में सिमट कर रह जाता है । ये कानून का कैसा चेहरा है ।आज तक जो मैंने देखा है दोषी आराम से बाहर घूम रहे अौर निर्दोष जेल में चक्की पीस रहे हैं ।पहली बार ऐसा सुनने में आया है कि दोषी कहे जाने वाला व्यक्ति कोई चुनाव नहीं लड़ सकता है,नहीं तो आज तक सारे के सारे अपराधी  संसद में भरे पड़े थे ।ये कैसा देश है ।मुझे कानून के विषय में इससे ज़्यादा  कुछ भी नहीं कहना है ।

Sudeep Dayal, an enlightened reader, as said above, has further added his anguished comments at the ordeals that stare the most hyped segment called, 'common man'. He states as below:-

The face of the 'common man' of this country is languishing in the shadows of anonymity, haunted  by the brokers of power and prestige . We find the common man at the periphery of decision making circles. It is high time we sat up and took notice of the common man, in whose name every thing is done but without caring the actual impact of that so called 'nothing' labelled as 'everything'

Mr. Rajesh Sahai Sir, thankfully your narration '.....' comes as a much

deserved tribute to the common man from the common man's perspective, his

achievements, his strengths and weaknesses, and above all his eloquent

silence rather he having been silenced.

Let's admit, it's tough to be the Common Man in India. The operating word in

the sentences that follow is - 'connections', bereft of which you as a common man is a non entity in India, especially in Bihar where system collapse does need to be examplified, as every road, every street, every government office, and every thing else is littered with the debris left behind by system collapse.

 If you have lived in India, you would have come across situations where connections with the powers that be, might have helped your case, no matter you had no case. The touch-points with the government machinery

are laden with calls to action to invoke such connections. They could be

proximity to the panchayat head, the Regional Transport Officer, the

District Magistrate and the list goes on, put as many number of blanks as you wish and take luxary in filling it up. No one can question its veracity. Hope you get the point.

You, my friend, the Common Man, can keep doing rounds of the courts  and offices, but you will eventually lose patience, as you do not have the 'connections'. Imagine that the police or the powers that be, hound you for being a witness to a crime for which you believe the perpetrator must be punished. Are you sure that the case would not be turned against you to protect the culprit? You were also present at the crime scene; you might be concocting your statement. Now you are thinking, aren't you?

Dear Common Man, you must fend for yourself as the state and the country do not care about you. Take each step with utmost diligence and keep away from challenging any one, for you never know, your demeanour might hurt one of those 'connected' and that might change your life forever, for the worse.

Likes of this enlightened readers are welcome. Their facts, rather than just emotional outbursts, may interest others. So send it on the following mailing ID, citing 'Ordeals that stare' as the subject:-

Mailing ID:-  inspiredcitizens@gmail.com