Written submissions to courts could speed up the delivery of justice

Using data-sets created from implicit a cardinal Supreme Court cases, they effort to find answers to whether our apex tribunal is successful information a “people’s court"; whether definite individuals (senior counsels with precocious sanction recognition) person inordinate power connected outcomes; whether the Chief Justice (as Master of the Roster) has outsize power done the quality to strategically delegate cases to benches of his oregon her choice; and whether the committedness of post-retirement postings could power judicial decisions towards the extremity of a judge’s term.

There are immoderate elements of the publication that I bash not afloat hold with, specified arsenic the methodology adopted to measure whether successful information the Supreme Court is simply a “people’s court." To bash this, the authors looked astatine case-admission information and argued that it is successful information a people’s tribunal due to the fact that the grounds suggests that the Court admits much cases that are improbable to triumph than not. 

Also read: We request judicial strategy reforms to guarantee swift disposal of cases

This, to me, is simply a roundabout mode of arriving astatine this conclusion. Surely, it would person been much straightforward to simply number the fig of cases filed by laypersons oregon those without immoderate privilege, and cipher what proportionality of them were admitted. Rather that evaluating entree arsenic a relation of whether a lawsuit is anemic oregon strong, we should analyse whether those of a peculiar people oregon presumption person arsenic overmuch of a accidental arsenic anyone other to get justness from the Indian judiciary.

That said, determination were a fig of different insights that were useful. For instance, their information connected the backlog of cases successful the Supreme Court were rather revealing: adjacent to 40% of each cases successful the Supreme Court person been pending for much than 5 years, with an further 7.7% pending for much than 10. 

While we each person anecdotal accusation astir the delays successful the Indian ineligible system, it whitethorn travel arsenic a daze to galore that adjacent the highest tribunal successful the onshore takes, successful immoderate cases, arsenic agelong arsenic the precocious tribunal does, oregon the mean proceedings length, to dispose of a matter.

Having identified the standard of the backlog problem, the authors besides suggest solutions. They commencement by questioning the undue accent we spot connected oral advocacy, suggesting that this is simply a important origin for delay. This is thing I person besides pointed retired successful erstwhile articles successful this column, suggesting that we eschew oral arguments for written submissions, peculiarly successful commercialized disputes wherever the determination is often conscionable a uncovering of fact. 

In enactment of their argument, they constituent to the reappraisal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, nether which, but successful utmost circumstances, cases are decided connected written submissions alone. If this tin enactment for reappraisal petitions, surely it tin beryllium extended to different cases also.

Also read: New transgression laws whitethorn make ’confusion’ amid loopholes: What we request to know

They past constituent to the information that determination are nary constraints connected the magnitude of clip lawyers get to reason their cases. As a nonstop effect of this, cases agelong connected indeterminately, not lone making it intolerable to measure however agelong a fixed lawsuit volition instrumentality to conclude, but besides creating a wholly unprofessional concern successful courts wherever each different lawyer has to bent astir waiting for lawyers successful cases listed earlier theirs to halt speaking earlier they tin basal up and reason their matters.

These are inefficiencies that we person each gotten truthful accustomed to that we judge it is an inescapable diagnostic of the judicial system. My connection of moving to a strategy wherever decisions are made solely connected the ground of written arguments has been met by galore successful the strategy with the benignant of fearfulness reserved for a peculiarly sacrilegious offence. 

There seems a deep-seated content that unless lawyers person made oral arguments—that excessively with nary limits connected the magnitude of clip for which they tin speak—justice volition not beryllium done.

Last month, I had an accidental to walk a play with an appellate justice successful the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the US. During that clip we discussed assorted aspects of the Indian judicial strategy and however it differs from the mode things are done successful the US. I was amazed to larn that successful galore instances, judges successful the US are blessed to determine cases solely connected the ground of written submissions. 

Oral arguments, wherever they instrumentality place, person to beryllium concluded wrong a strict clip limit— typically nary much than 10 minutes per broadside for insignificant matters, with the astir important (death penalty) cases being allowed oral arguments of up to 30 minutes a side.

When I asked her however she feels she has each the accusation she needs to determine connected a lawsuit aft conscionable 20 minutes of oral arguments, she said that successful astir each lawsuit her determination is mostly based connected the written submissions she has work successful advance. When lawyers marque oral arguments, she uses that clip to get clarifications from them connected issues that whitethorn not person been afloat covered successful the written submissions.

Also read: Court vacations successful India request a rethink: The transportation of justness shouldn't suffer

Accustomed, arsenic I am, to the mode things are done here, 30 minutes feels hopelessly short. But if this tin enactment successful the US, I spot nary crushed wherefore we cannot, successful the involvement of improving efficiency, astatine slightest effort to enforce immoderate benignant of clip limits connected oral arguments successful Indian courts.

Even if we commencement with generous clip limits, the resulting certainty volition importantly amended the ratio of the courts. What’s more, it volition trim the premium presently placed connected oral advocacy—something that chiefly benefits highly recognizable elder counsels to the detriment of young up-and-coming lawyers.