Prof. Neelam Mahajan Singh
While a citizen moves to the court expecting justice, towards what he feels is denial of his fundamental rights or abuse of state power or false litigation, the whole process gets embroiled in years due to prolonged litigation. “Tarikh pey tarikh to mili per my Lord, nayay nahi mila”; dialogue of actor Sunny Deol from the film ‘Damini’ (My Lord I got date after date, but am denied justice); is being quoted by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, Justice Dr. Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud too.
At the outset it may be stated that adjournment after adjournment, is violation of the judgment passed by Honb’le Justice Dalveer Bhandari, ex Supreme Court Judge (presently a judge of International Court of Justice in Hague), in the case of: Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249, wherein it has been laid down that, “no adjournments should be granted by district courts; without imposing costs, on the litigant who is seeking adjournment”. On the other hand, there are constant adjournments, on fake, fictitious and fabricated grounds, given by the courts.
This is sapping the vitality of judiciary and leading to trust erosion in the minds of common man. Why are the courts burdened with more than twenty years old cases? It is because they give “tarikh pey tarikh”! Disgusted litigants also get exhausted and lose hope of getting justice. It is common to see that the judges and magistrates of the district courts, without blinking of eyelids, give adjournments, leading to delays in trials. Infact most of the advocates take the next date of hearing from the ‘Munshi or court’s head clerk’.
This is highly inappropriate. This is common for civil as well as criminal cases all over India. There are a few factors which need to be examined. That the process of seeking justice is not only ‘scary but also it is not litigant friendly’. The litigant has to depend upon a lawyer,which is okay, but the lawyers must behave like, ‘officers of the court’; to put the factual details in front of the judges, so that they arrive at ‘truthful dispensation of justice’.
In his landmark judgment, Justice Dalveer Bandari has clearly laid down that, “no adjournment should be granted by the learned judges, without imposition of the costs”. This costs should keep increasing from the previously ‘sought adjournment’. This is not only wasting the time of the courts but also leading to pendency of cases. In fact, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, reinforced the judgement of Justice Vidya Bhushan Gupta, of Delhi High Court (CM No. 15288/2010) who had imposed a cost of rupees seventy five thousand on the litigant who filed a frivolous appeal.
Justice Vidya Bhushan Gupta observed, “this litigant’s motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial. Misleading and false information has resulted in pendency of the suit for 18 years”. Further frivolity of adjournments by the courts is resulting in mandatory injunctions. It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheel of justice making it difficult for the courts to provide easy and speedy justice to the genuine litigants.
A strong message is required to be sent to those litigants, who are in the habit of challenging each and every order of the trial court, even if the same is based on sound reasoning and also to those litigants who keep on filing frivolous applications, one after the other.
By filing these frivolous petitions, petitioners not only waste the precious time of the courts, but at regular intervals they waste the time of the trial courts also and creating obstruction at every stage. Litigants also make false allegations against the trial judges by filing false and frivolous transfer applications, which delay the process of justice. “No mercy should be shown to such type of litigants, who have no other work but just to waste the time of different courts and create obstruction in the smooth functioning of the judicial system”; Justice V. B. Gupta said. “Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners that they still do not want the suit instituted about 18 years ago, to reach its ultimate destination, must be made to pay heavy costs for filing frivolous and bogus applications”.
Hence, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only), to be complied by 7th October, 2010. In Justice Bhandari’s judgment; (3.11) the learned Judge, then proceeded to explain the concept of ‘actual realistic cost’ in the following words: “The actual realistic costs should have a correlation to the costs which are realistic and practical, incurred by the other party. It cannot obviously refer to fanciful and whimsical expenditure by parties who have the luxury of engaging a battery of high-charging lawyers,” observed Justice Dalveer Bhandari. In a matter relating to temporary injunction, merely because the court adjourns the matter several times and one side engages a counsel by paying lakhs of rupees per hearing, should the other side be made to bear such costs?
The Supreme Court observed, “the costs should be commensurate with the time spent by the courts. The courts should not be concerned with the number of lawyers engaged or the high rate of day fee paid to them. For the present, the advocate fee should be a ‘realistic normal single fee”. (In 3.16) The Supreme Court then made a significant observation that the schemes/ processes for assessment of costs in some of the western countries is in millions of dollars and pounds, for those who seek adjournments!
The costs awarded in USA and Europe have been more than the amount involved in the litigation itself. Infact a litigant, who starts the litigation, after some time, being unable to bear the delay and mounting costs, gives up and surrenders to the other side or agrees to settlement which is something akin to, ‘creditor who is not able to recover the debt, writing off the debt’. “If this happens frequently, the citizens will lose confidence in the justice system,” Justice Dalveer Bhandari noted. At present the courts have virtually given up awarding any compensatory costs, to the aggrieved litigants. Supreme Court of India has said, “we are of the view that the ceiling in regard to compensatory costs should be at least Rs.1,00,000/-.”
The costs awarded for false or vexatious claims should be punitive and not merely compensatory. In retrospect it may be stated that the judiciary itself should retrospect, as to why they give adjournments? CJI Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud will superanuate in November 2024.
It is prayed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, that he abolishes the system of, ‘special mentions’ by influential lawyers, which hampers the interest of common litigants who are waiting for years to get listed. A judicial notification based on Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s judgment should be promulgated by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud.
Further there should be a ‘monitoring procedure’ over the state high courts. The same procedures should be made for the district and subordinate courts. The High Court should take cognisance of the pending cases, due to frivolous adjournments, causing delay in giving justice to the common man.
The District and Sessions Judges should make a monitoring panel of judges and advocates to see, as to how many unnecessary adjournments are given by a particular judge – court. These judge’s ‘ACRs should be red-inked by the supervisory judge’. Since district courts are under the jurisdiction of the state High Courts, it is obligatory on the part of state high courts to see that easy, early justice is given to the common man. It is high time that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’; be nipped in the bud. Rise and awake honourable judiciary! Do not give adjournments without imposing costs; should be the rule propounded by Justice Dalveer Bhandari of the Supreme Court of India and Justice Vidya Bhushan Gupta of Delhi High Court.
This judgement is already mandatory for implementation by all the state high courts and district courts, all over India. The motto of the Supreme Court is inscribed in every judge’s court room, in Sanskrit, “यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः” (Yato Dharmastato Jaiam) means “when justice, then victory”; on the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity. Let the common man, ‘Antodaya’ get timely justice. Jai Hind … Satyamev Jayatey!
(Writer is Sr. Journalist, Author, Doordarshan Personality, Solicitor for Civil Liberties & Human Rights Protection and Philanthropist)
