The judicial system exists for the “common man”, the Supreme Court noticed on Thursday whereas expressing concern over prolonged arguments by litigants that too throughout the COVID instances, and stated proscribing time for oral submissions must be enforced.
The high courtroom additionally stated it was conscious of “equal responsibility of this side of the bench” and recommended that “Wren & Martin principles of precis writing must be adopted” for clear and quick judgements which litigants perceive.
However, there are hours-long submissions and huge quantities of fabric positioned earlier than the courts, it added.
The essential observations over extended arguments, submission of prolonged paperwork and case legal guidelines by counsels got here in a judgement by which the highest courtroom which dismissed the plea of Facebook India Vice President and MD Ajit Mohan difficult the summons issued to him by the Delhi Assembly’s Peace and Harmony committee for failing to look earlier than it as witness in reference to the north-east Delhi riots which broke out final February.
A bench headed by Justice S Ok Kaul stated: “The purpose of our post script is only to start a discussion among the legal fraternity by bringing to notice the importance of succinctly framed written synopsis in advance, and the same being adhered to in course of oral arguments to be addressed over a limited time period and more crisp, clear and precise judgments so that the common man can understand what is the law being laid down. After all, it is for “the widespread man” that the judicial system exists.”
The top court said that as on May 1, 2021 it had 67,898 pending matters and the time spent on routine matters leaves little time to settle legal principles pending before larger benches that may have an impact down the line on the judicial system.
“This is the explanation it’s stated that now we have turn into courts of interim proceedings the place last proceedings conclude after ages — just for one other spherical to begin in civil proceedings of execution,” stated the bench, additionally comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy.
The high courtroom stated there must be readability within the thought course of on what’s to be addressed earlier than the Court and the legal professionals have to be clear on the contours of their submissions from the very inception of the arguments.
“This should be submitted as a brief synopsis by both sides and then strictly adhered to. Much as the legal fraternity would not want, restriction of time period for oral submissions is an aspect which must be brought into force.
“We really doubt whether any judicial forum anywhere in the world would allow such time periods to be taken for oral submissions and these be further supplemented by written synopsis thereafter. Instead of restricting oral arguments it has become a competing arena of who gets to argue for the longest time,” the bench stated.
The high courtroom stated that on this explicit case “saga of the hearing lasted 26 hours – which is a lot of judicial time”.
“Apart from pleadings, there were written synopses, additional written synopses, rejoinders and replies filed liberally by both parties. The convenience compilations themselves were very voluminous, in contradiction to their very purpose.
“Our concern is if this is how the proceedings will go on in the future, it will be very difficult to deal with the post COVID period, which is likely to see a surge in the number of cases pending adjudication,” it stated.
The bench stated that COVID instances have been troublesome for everybody and the Judiciary and the Bar aren’t any exception.
It has been a contributing think about there being a interval of 4 months between reserving the judgment and pronouncement of the order, however that’s not the one motive, it stated.
The high courtroom stated that delay in judicial proceedings has been the bane of our nation and there can’t be a refusal to half methods from outdated practices particularly after they have outlived their goal.
“It is the litigants who bear the costs of our complex and prolonged adjudicatory process. We are conscious of the equal responsibility of this side of the bench – it is the need of the hour to write clear and short judgments which the litigant can understand.
“The Wren & Martin principles of precis writing must be adopted. But then how is this to be achieved if the submissions itself go on for hours on end with vast amounts of material being placed before the Court; with the expectation that each aspect would be dealt with in detail failing which review applications will be filed,” the bench stated.
In a technological age like ours, all that’s required is to instruct the junior counsel to take out all judgments on a specific viewpoint and submit it to the courtroom in a pleasant spiral binding, it stated.
The proposition of regulation shouldn’t be doubted by the Court, it doesn’t want a precedent except requested for. If a query is raised a few authorized proposition, the judgment have to be relatable to that proposition – and never a number of judgments, the courtroom stated.
“Another matter of concern is prolonged interim proceedings. In criminal matters, even bail matters are being argued for hours together and at multiple levels.
“The position is no different in civil proceedings where considerable time is spent at interim stage when the objective should be only to safeguard the rights of the parties by a short order, and spend the time on the substantive proceedings instead which could bring an end to the lis rather than on the interim arrangement,” the bench stated.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by India07 employees and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)
(THIS STORY HAS NOT BEEN EDITED BY INDIA07 TEAM AND IS AUTO-GENERATED FROM A SYNDICATED FEED.)