& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Disposal of case backlog

Redeeming people's confidence on subordinate judiciary

Mohammad Nayeem Firoz & Naurin Aktar Kankon
SLIGHTLY diverging from Gladstone's legal maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' and equitable maxim of'delay defeats equity' we offer the stance that justice may be delayed but must not be eventually denied in the administration of justice. 'Justice delayed is justice denied' signifies that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not accommodating in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all.
The phrase as propounded by William Ewart Gladstone has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour. Nevertheless we have another popular saying i.e. 'better late than ever'. Now question arises- should we limit our perception exclusively within the ambit of Gladstone's maxim? Arguably, if in any case justice can never be delivered to the litigant people we may accept the contention that 'justice is denied'. But what will be our position if despite some delay caused by few inexorable factors in administration of justice the expected justice can finally be dispensed with the litigant people.
Nonetheless, is it not better to get expected justice albeit in a latter point of time than being completely deprived of getting it. It is a prime fact that the shortage in the quantity of Judicial Officers in the subordinate Courts is the principal cause of delay in disposal of litigations but it is not the only reason. The 'delay-factor' in disposal of litigations in our subordinate Courts is not a creature of any single phenomenon or a single actor. Rather this factor has its root in multifarious phenomena and several actors. So far as our perception of prevalent legal practice and procedure in the administration of justice in the subordinate Courts is concerned the 'delayfactor' which acts as the cardinal obstacle in speedy disposal of long-pending litigations is not easy to wipe out. So, it is required to be ensured by all concerned with the dispensation of justice in the subordinate Courts that even if justice is delayed for some inevitable reasons it must not be denied ultimately.
It is worth mentioning here that success had come in some district Courts of Bangladesh by virtue of few effective implementations of strategies. The core theme of these strategies is to provide the litigant people the 'Optimum Justice' by way of enforcing a three-fold combined powers comprising of three significant actors of administration of justice in the subordinate Courts. These three significant actors of justice dispensation system are the judges, lawyers and supporting staff of the Courts. The balanced coordination of these three actors in any given judicial structure can play most significant role in speedy disposal of litigations.
At the outset, it is imperative for the Judges who are invested with the sacred duty of adjudication to have integrity, discretion, judiciousness and diligence. Without the sincerity and attention of the Judges the speedy disposal of long pending litigations is not at all possible. The second most significant actor in the process of speedy disposal is the lawyers engaged to plead in the litigations. In spite of the Judges' sincere effort, speedy disposal of proceedings will be next to impossible without the earnest co-operation of the concerned lawyers. The lawyers can be successfully encouraged for participating in the process of speedy disposal if they can be reminded of their legal obligation to establish their cli- ents1 legal right and if they can be motivated to act in accordance with their social responsibility as an advanced part of the citizenry.
The third most significant actor for speedy disposal of litigations are the supporting Court-staff engaged in different sections of the Courts. Their skill, honesty and sincerity are also very important factors in the process of speedy disposal of the proceedings. That is why all the departments of a judgeship must be made dynamic by generating motivation to each of the Court-staff. The infirmity or negligence of any of the aforesaid actors can hinder the speedy disposal. It is argued that a 'comprehensive justice system' can be developed in the subordinate judiciary through fortifying the departments of a judgeship and through the consolidated participation of the Judges, Lawyers and Court-staff in the process of speedy disposal of litigations. By ensuring the balanced co-ordination of three significant actors of the administration of justice a twofold system was implemented in few district Courts for the speedy disposal of litigations. The system comprises two phases.
The management of individual Courts is the first phase of the strategy adopted for the speedy disposal of litigations. Firstly, several conferences can be arranged integrating the judges of all tiers of the district Courts where the Judges can be motivated and some guidelines should be rendered to them for the speedy disposal. As a part of the Court Management motivational sessions and training program can be organised for the Court-staff for building their capacity. As a part of this mechanism, special attention should be put to the important departments of the district Courts. One of the important departments of district Court is Nezarat Department (Process Serving Wing).
In our country one of the cardinal reasons behind the delay in speedy disposal of litigations is the improper service of summons. If the summonses are not duly served then because of its consequence not only the disposal of the litigation becomes delayed but also the party without the knowledge of whom the judgment of any litigation is pronounced becomes severely preju- diced. Linder a stringent monitoring system by the Judgein-charge of Nezarat mentionable achievement will come in the field of service of summons.
Copying department is another important department which is closely related to the adjudication system. No Appeal, Review, Revision or Mise. Case can be instituted within prescribed time if the copying department fails to deliver certified copies within time as prescribed by law. In accordance with Civil Rules and Orders (CRO) all the pending petitions for certified copies can be disposed of rapidly and delivered from concerned copying department within few working days under the monitoring and direction of the Judge-in-charge of that department. In this way by perfect Court Management all the departments of the judgeship can be made well-organised for being capable to function for the process of speedy disposal of litigations.
The management of Judicial Proceedings is another but more significant stage of the system adopted for the speedy disposal of litigations. In the advent of Case Management, firstly, initiative can be adopted to fix a tentative point of time for the disposal of each case by analysing the case records and preparing a priority list to that effect. Subsequently definite point of time can be fixed for each litigation. The point of time which is fixed for the disposal of a particular litigation may be affixed with the title page of those case records which will ultimately encourage the learned judges and lawyers to try their best to meet the target for speedy disposal of the litigations. By introducing this system all the pending litigations can be finally disposed of.
If the aforesaid system can be effectively implemented in the district Courts of Bangladesh for speedy disposal of litigations then backlogs of long pending litigations can be off-loaded to a bigger extent. This strategic reduction of the existing case-surfeit may be proved as an effective tool for redeeming the confidence of the countrymen on the subordinate judiciary.
THE WRITERS ARE SENIOR ASSISTANT |UDGE AND
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN JUDGES' COURT AND
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRACY OF CHITTAGONG RESPECTIVELY.