Open Access Research Article
JUSTICE DELAYED UNRAVELLING THE CONUNDRUM OF JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
Published Paper
Article Details
JUSTICE
DELAYED: UNRAVELLING THE CONUNDRUM OF 'JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
AUTHORED
BY: PRIYA JAISWAL
ABSTRACT
“Justice contains words like fair,
rational, and such fairness that involves equitable distribution and correction
of what is inequitable,” Aristotle said. The legal maxim ‘Justice Delayed is
Justice Denied’ refers to the principle that if the process to seek justice
through any cause, the justice delivered does not amount to real justice. Further,
the author strives to define the maxim and the origin of the abovementioned
phrase in the following article. In the speech of our former Chief Justice P.
N. Bhagwati, on account of Law Day held in the year 1985, “I am pained to
observe that the judicial system in the country is on the verge of collapse.
Our judicial system is crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite
saying that justice delayed is justice denied. We often utter this
platitudinous phrase to express our indignation at the delay in the disposal of
cases, but this indignation is only at an intellectual and superficial level.
Those seeking justice in our Courts have to wait patiently for years and years
to get justice.”
The various causes for the delay of
justice to the general public and some means through which the functioning of
the justice mechanism can be improved have been portrayed in the following
composition. The present technical scenario in the functioning of the judicial
mechanism witnesses the current case laws that seek delayed justice.
KEYWORDS: corruption, e-courts, justice, judicial
mechanism, modernization.
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1980s, the phrase “Justice Delayed
is Justice Denied” has become the center of concern for almost all domestic and
international issues. The main reason for the grave popularity of the phrase is
the economic consequences it may lead to. It is often believed that if the
justice mechanism is swift enough, it can eliminate all forms of deviance,
which can be crime, torts, corruption, and many more. Most of the research has
shown that the time taken to deliver justice in a case is a crucial factor in
determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system. The
elements of proportionality and appropriateness of the time taken to provide
the judgment in a case are said to form part of the definition of time taken by
the court. While enhancing the speed of the justice system, one must also keep
improving the quality of the judiciary‘s work.
The word justice originates from the
Latin word jus, which means right or law. According to philosophers like Plato,
Justice is a virtue that can be used as a tool in establishing rational order,
while Aristotle said that justice contains words like fair, rational, and such
fairness that involves equitable distribution and correction of what is
inequitable. Once, Martin Luther King said, "Injustice everywhere is a
danger to justice everywhere." In the case of a legitimate legal system,
justice thus delivered should be fair, inexpensive, and quick. Justice, being
everyone’s right, acts like the guardian of civil rights and the shield of
innocence.[1]
Former Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, in
his Law Day speech in 1985, said, “I am pained to observe that the judicial
system in the country is on the verge of collapse. Our judicial system is
crashing under the weight of arrears. It is a trite saying that justice delayed
is justice denied. We often utter this platitudinous phrase to express our
indignation at the delay in the disposal of cases, but this indignation is only
at an intellectual and superficial level. Those who are seeking justice in our
Courts have to wait patiently for years and years to get justice.”[2]
The phrase “Justice Delayed is
Justice Denied” (hereinafter mentioned as this phrase) is a legal maxim that
means if the process of seeking justice gets delayed due to some circumstances,
the justice delivered does not amount to real justice as specified in the law
of the land. In other words, this maxim refers to the denial of equitable
relief and justice to the aggrieved party if they do not approach the court
within the time frame allotted for the consideration of the case. This phrase
was coined by the then-British Prime Minister William E. Gladstone during the
tenure of his office (1809–1898). It is held in the Limitation Act, of 1963,
that there exists a time limit for filing a civil suit, but it remains silent
about the period of the disposition of the civil cases. It is seen that the
costs of continuing a civil case are quite high, and sometimes it takes around
3 to 4 generations to get justice in their matters. Through the decades, it has
been said that the failure of the judiciary is equal to the failure of the
democratic legal system. [3]
Reasons for
delay in Justice Mechanism
This phrase has been prevalent for
decades because of various causes that lead to delays in the delivery of
justice. The delay in justice further leads to denial of justice in some cases
having time-bound relief while in some cases, it leads to the delivery of
justice but not real justice. There are some of the following causes that lead
to the reason of delay in the justice mechanism:
A.
Pendency of Cases
In an official report, the number of
pending cases has crossed over 4.41 crore nationwide, with Maharashtra alone
accounting for over 50 lakhs, per the National Judicial Data Grid records on
July 15, 2023.[4] The
cause of pending cases can be the allotment of multiple dates for the trial of
the case, the adjournment taken by the lawyers to deal with a large number of
cases at a time, etc. The pending cases serve as an excess burden on the work
of the Judiciary.
B.
Corruption in the Judiciary
It is sadly observed that many
lawyers representing their clients often get a large sum of money to lose a
case from the opposite party, which leads to the client losing hope and
confidence in the justice system. It has become a common scenario where court
staff and officials indulge in taking bribes for the service they provide to
the public. Corruption in the field of the judiciary can lead to the withdrawal
of public trust in the judicial mechanism.
C.
The Traditional Functioning of the Judiciary
The workings and functions of the
judicial system, based on the traditional customs and practices of the court,
are time-consuming and exhaustive for both the parties to the case and the
judges and lawyers. The strong belief and faith in traditional methods hinder
it from becoming a technically advanced and well-equipped organization at the
same time.
There are some more causes like
unnecessary inflow of cases, absence of work culture, inadequate staff, etc
that lead to delays in the delivery of justice. Thus, we come to the point that
if these factors remain prevalent, it will lead the citizens to squander their belief
on the pillar of justice. Justice, being the statue of democratic government, if
falls will lead to destruction and chaos in the economy.
Suggestions
To Improve the Judicial System
While identifying the causes of any
issue, one must also give suggestions to overcome those problems. Herein the
case, the courts must take appropriate measures to improve their working style.
The adoption of effective measures will lead to the delivery of justice within a
short time frame and will eventually lead to the efficient functioning of the
judiciary. There are some of the following ways through which the working of the
judiciary can be improved:
A.
Improve the Number of Judges and Courts
The total number of judges should be
increased to increase the productivity of the Judiciary. There should be an
increase in the number of fast-track courts to deal with heinous crimes like
rape, murder, etc. It further reduces the burden and workload of the higher
courts in the country. The expenditure of the Judiciary must be increased to
such an extent that it promotes the healthy growth and development of the
courts as well as the judges at the same time.
B.
Modernization of the Judiciary
The judicial system of the country
must ensure the introduction of modern technology and practices in the courts.
For example, steps like the e-Courts Mission Mode Project and The Judicial Data
Grid should be taken into consideration to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the courts.[5]
The adoption and practice of modern methods lead to a better and improved
functioning of the judicial mechanism.
C.
Fixed Time for the Disposition of the Cases
There should be a proper and adequate
allotment of time within which a particular case must be resolved. The laws
must specify the tenure of each case by classifying the cases in the forms of
heinous crime cases, civil cases, cyber cases, and many more so that the cases
can be easily disposed of, keeping in mind the level of loss and suffering with
which the victim is undergone. The disposal of the cases within a particular
time frame leads to improved functioning of the courts by reducing the pendency
of the cases, which further reduces the workload of the courts.
There are some means like formulation
of E-courts, annual vacancy of the court staff, formulation of anti-corruption cells
in the courts, etc. Thus, we conclude that the judiciary must take adequate
measures to improve the quality of justice delivered. The judiciary must hold
on to the beliefs of citizens and keep flourishing so that the democratic
government can work smoothly.
Judicial
Approach Towards Delayed Justice
The instances of delayed justice are
many in the national scenario. The causes of delay in justice have led to a rise
in the number of cases all over the country, due to which the workload of the
judiciary has increased to a great level. There are some of the recent case
laws that witness the delay of justice and withdrawal of hope of citizens upon
the judiciary which are as follows:
Wrestlers’ Case[6]
The recent issue in which six
wrestlers, including Sakshi Malik, Vinesh Phogat, Bajrang Punia, and Sangeeta
Phogat, filed a case against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the outgoing President
of the Wrestling Federation of India, has been accused of demanding sexual favors
in exchange for financial assistance. On April 23, 2023, they initiated a
protest seeking justice for the deplorable actions of a politician. Vinesh
Phogat remarked that women are targeted when they raise their voices,” and
Bajrang Punia held that justice is more important than Asian Games.” The courts
are just delaying the delivery of justice by being stuck in the traditional
practices of filling out charge sheets, providing summons to the accused, and
allotting different dates to the hearing of the case, which in turn loses hope
and confidence in the justice mechanism of the country.
M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant
Suresh Das & Ors[7]
This case is popularly known as the
“Ayodhya Dispute Case,” which was based on the dispute that arose between the
two holy places, which were ‘Ram Mandir’ and ‘Babri Masjid’. The legal clash
over Ayodhya began in the year 1950 when a petition was first filed by Gopal
Singh Visharad, Ayodhya ‘s secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu
Mahasabha was an organization formed to oppose the secular principles of the
Congress party at that time. The judgment in the case took around 69 years to
deliver justice. The verdict of the Supreme Court was passed by the then Chief
Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, on November 9, 2019. This seems to be the
clearest example of the aforementioned legal maxim, as justice was not
delivered when it was needed the most but upon the wills and whims of the court
and the government.
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)[8]
This case is also known as the
“Nirbhaya Case,” which highlights the act of rape committed by six men in a
running bus in Delhi on December 16, 2012. The original name of the victim
remains unpublished, while it is mentioned as Nirbhaya in all proceedings. The
judgment was delivered by the bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra,
Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan, where four criminals were
awarded the death penalty and the other two were sent to the reformation home
for around 3 years. The four criminals were hanged at Tihar Jail on March 20,
2020, which highlights the above legal maxim that the victim of the case gets
justice eight years after her death from such an inhumane act.
Through these case laws, we come to
know that due to delay in justice, the actual criminal moves freely with an
evil intention to harm the victim of the crime. The freedom of the criminals
and the sufferings of the victims are the biggest pitfall for the delay in
justice. If the judiciary takes the appropriate steps, then its functioning
will increase and it will induce the courts to punish the actual criminal of
the prohibited act. The punishment given to the criminal within the short time of
committing the crime will prevent people from committing crimes in the future.
CONCLUSION
It is popularly believed that
impartial, positive, and independent justice are the foundations of an
efficient government. The judiciary is the only path to protect and ensure
social justice and social welfare for every citizen in various spheres of life,
be it human rights, child adoption rights, or fundamental rights.[9]
The legal maxim is similar to one more phrase, “Justice Hurried is Justice
Buried,” which says if there is quick judgment in any case, it is also harmful to
securing real justice for the citizens, which seems to be equally true.
Therefore, there should be a sufficient, reasonable hearing of every case after
taking into consideration its circumstances, which is a requirement for the
delivery of Natural Justice.[10]
The Judges are amply compensated for
their notable contributions to their profession by getting certain awards, the
publication of news articles, honors from the top administrative heads of the
country, etc. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the higher judiciary to
give their best to ensure quick disposal of cases without compromising the
quality of verdicts.[11]
It is also held in Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta that Rights and Justice shall
not be delayed, denied, or sold to any person.[12]
At the function organized by the
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to bid farewell to Justice Subhash Reddy,
the then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana said, “We all have to work together to
promote a sense of belonging with the justice delivery system among the public.
The understanding of judicial infrastructure has to transcend the issues of
pendency, vacancy, or the number of courtrooms. It should involve
modernization, upgradation, and creating a ‘barrier-free, citizen-friendly
environment’. We can assert true accessibility when the person with the maximum
disadvantage can still knock on the doors of the court of justice.”[13]
For any problem to be solved, change
must occur not in the form of a directory but in the form of rules and
regulations that are compulsory. It must ensure the citizens of the country
that the Judiciary is the temple of justice. It is believed that prolonged
legal proceedings lead to severe consequences for the parties involved, public
trust, and economic growth. It is the responsibility of the government, legal
practitioners, and society as a whole to work together to ensure that the
pursuit of justice remains swift, fair, and accessible to all. It is said,
“Justice is the insurance we have in our lives, and obedience is the premium we
pay.”[14]
[1]
Shreemh Agarwal, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, Law Gurukul (June 7,
2021)
[2] Manisha Kumari, Justice Delayed is
Justice Denied: Status of Indian Judicial System, Nyaayshatra Law Review,
Volume II, PP. 02 (2021)
[3] Kumari, supra note 2, PP. 1
[4] Vinod Kumar Menon, Justice
delayed, justice denied: Pending legal cases in India cross over 4.41 crore,
Mid-Day (July 15, 2023)
[5] Justice Delayed Justice Denied,
Essay for the Judicial Services Exam
https://www.jurisacademy.com/justice-delayed-justice-denied
[6] Krishnadas Rajagopal, Supreme
Court closes wrestlers’ case even as Delhi Police promises ‘impartial’ probe,
The Hindu (May 04, 2023)
[7] CA 10866-10867/2010
[8]
(2017) 6 SCC 1
[9] Semwal, M. M., and Sunil Khosla,
Judicial Activism, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Volume. 69, No. 1,
PP. 113–26, JSTOR (2008)
[10] Samriddhi Amrita Mishra, Justice
Delayed is Justice Denied, Legal Services India E-Journal
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3313-justice-delayed-is-justice-denied.html
[11] Gautam Bhattacharya, The Power of
the PIL, The Telegraph Online (January 10, 2023)
https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-power-of-the-pil-justice-delayed-is-justice-denied-remains-relevant-today/cid/1908915
[12] Roe, Gilbert E., et al, Social
Justice and the Courts, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1912, PP. 19–29,
JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/783947
[13] Justice delayed is Justice Denied:
All is not well in the Supreme Court, Bar, and Bench (January 06, 2022)
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/all-is-not-well-supreme-court-justice-delayed-is-justice-denied
[14] Shreya Bhadauria, Justice Delayed
is Justice Denied, International Journal of Law Management and Humanities,
Volume 4, Issue 4, PP.254 (2021)
Article Information
JUSTICE DELAYED UNRAVELLING THE CONUNDRUM OF JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
Authors: PRIYA JAISWAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/12/27
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.