2013 (2) TMI 27 - SC - Indian Laws

Adjournment - Repeated Adjournments - faith and hope of the people in the constitutional system. The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralyzed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter. One cannot be oblivious to the feeling necessities of the time. No one can afford to sit in an ivory tower. Neither a Judge nor a lawyer can ignore the total push and pressure of the cosmos . It is devastating to expect infinite patience. - Change of attitude is the warrant and command of the day. We may recall with profit what Justice Cardozo had said - It is true, I think, today in every department of law that the social value of a rule has become a test of growing power and importance . In a democratic set up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect-potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where justice may become a casuality. A litigant expects a reasoned verdict from a temperate Judge but does not intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment of all concerned with the system. It cannot be regarded as a facet of Utopianism because such a thought is likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose. Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual approach. It is the duty of the counsel as the officer of the court to assist the court in a properly prepared manner and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Getting an adjournment is neither an art nor science. It has never been appreciated by the courts. All who are involved in the justice dispensation system, which includes the Judges, the lawyers, the judicial officers who work in courts, the law officers of the State, the Registry and the litigants, have to show dedicated diligence so that a controversy is put to rest. Shifting the blame is not the cure. Acceptance of responsibility and dealing with it like a captain in the frontier is the necessity of the time. It is worthy to state that diligence brings satisfaction. There has to be strong resolve in the mind to carry out the responsibility with devotion. A time has come when all concerned are required to abandon idleness and arouse oneself and see to it that the syndrome of delay does not erode the concept of dispensation of expeditious justice which is the constitutional command. Sagacious acceptance of the deviation and necessitous steps taken for the redressal of the same would be a bright lamp which would gradually become a laser beam. This is the expectation of the collective, and the said expectation has to become a reality. Expectations are not to remain at the stage of hope. They have to be metamorphosed to actuality. Long back, Francis Bacon, in his aphoristic style, had said, Hope is good breakfast, but it is bad supper . We say no more on this score. We request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan as well as the other learned Chief Justices to conceive and adopt a mechanism, regard being had to the priority of cases, to avoid such inordinate delays in matters which can really be dealt with in an expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards the destination. A sensible individual inspiration and a committed collective endeavour would indubitably help in this regard.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delayed adjudication in the judicial process.
2. The role and responsibilities of the judiciary and legal professionals in ensuring timely justice.
3. The impact of adjournments on the judicial process.
4. The necessity of formulating substantial questions of law in second appeals.
5. The duties and obligations of lawyers towards their clients and the court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delayed adjudication in the judicial process:
The judgment emphasizes the paramount importance of the Rule of Law in a democratic society governed by a written Constitution. It underscores that the judiciary must protect the Fundamental Rights of citizens and uphold democratic values. The judgment states, "The foundation of justice, apart from other things, rests on the speedy delineation of the lis pending in courts." It highlights that delays in the judicial process can erode public faith in the judicial system, stating, "Delayed delineation of a controversy in a court of law creates a dent in the normative dispensation of justice."

2. The role and responsibilities of the judiciary and legal professionals in ensuring timely justice:
The judgment stresses the collective responsibility of the judiciary, lawyers, and litigants in ensuring timely justice. It asserts, "The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralyzed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter." The judgment calls for a change in attitude, emphasizing the need for "constant patience, consistent perseverance, and argus-eyed vigilance" to maintain the sacredness of democracy and the justice system.

3. The impact of adjournments on the judicial process:
The judgment critically examines the corrosive effect of adjournments on the judicial process. It states, "The proceedings in the second appeal before the High Court epitomize the corrosive effect that adjournments can have on litigation." The judgment highlights how routine adjournments and non-appearance of counsel have led to significant delays in the case. It emphasizes that "adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of the justice delivery system."

4. The necessity of formulating substantial questions of law in second appeals:
The judgment underscores the importance of formulating substantial questions of law in second appeals. It notes that the High Court admitted the second appeal on two substantial questions of law and directed a stay of the impugned judgment and decree. The judgment references previous rulings, such as Kailash v. Nanhku, to highlight that procedural laws should aid in achieving justice and not obstruct it. It states, "The procedure is directory but emphasis was laid on the concept of desirability."

5. The duties and obligations of lawyers towards their clients and the court:
The judgment reiterates the professional duties of lawyers towards their clients and the court. It cites several precedents emphasizing the lawyer's obligation to attend court proceedings diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments. For instance, in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration), it was held, "It is the duty of every Advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day-to-day." The judgment also highlights that lawyers should not use adjournments as a tactic to delay proceedings, stating, "A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure."

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes by urging the High Court and the legal community to adopt mechanisms to avoid inordinate delays in judicial proceedings. It emphasizes the collective responsibility of all stakeholders in the justice system to ensure timely and effective adjudication. The judgment states, "A concerted effort is bound to give results," and calls for a committed collective endeavor to address the issue of delays in the judicial process. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with a request to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan and other Chief Justices to take necessary steps to prevent such delays in the future.