Sir, I rise to support the Demands that have been placed before
the House by the Home Minister. Sir, I need not remind the House that this year
the Home Ministry's demands are being discussed in a context which can be
described as almost unprecedented. It is for the first time that we are
discussing the Demands of this Ministry after the country passed through the
period of the Emergency that rocked the very basic structure of the
Constitution and our policy and made the common people of our country realize
what they have lost with the eclipse of their100 Fundamental Rights and Freedom.
Sir, the nineteen months of rule marked the culmination of a concerted effort
to undermine democracy.120 Those who wanted to destroy the democracy and convert our system
into a totalitarian system had looked upon the Ministry140 as the main instrument for forcing
their will on the nation.
They wanted to substitute the Rule of Law with160 a reign of terror to place
individuals above the law, to provide immunity to those whom the group liked
and to harass all those who were looked upon as dangerous to the monopoly of power
that the extra-constitutional group wanted200 to preserve. The then Home
Minister was himself a captive of this group. It was practically a totalitarian
regime and was, therefore, bound to be a police regime. That is why, I would
request the Home Minister that the whole240 police department should be thoroughly overhauled. Sir, I do
not want to take the time of the House by listing the various agencies that
were set up in the Police Department and the Home Department during the Emergency,
and before280 that, I also do not want to take the time of the House in
describing the fabulous amounts of money300 that had been placed at the disposal of RAW and other agencies.
Even the money was placed at the disposal320 of certain individuals and that was exempted from the scrutiny
of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or the Parliament. I do not
want to go into all these details, but I would only request the Home Minister
to360 go into these
things and ensure that such things do not happen in future. Under the circumstances,
the task of the Home Minister is, therefore, one of dismantling the police
state that was built up by the400 previous Government.
Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, in the course of his reply, the hon.
Minister referred to some of the remarks420 made on the 18th while replying to Question No.4, and he said
that his remarks were misunderstood by some of the Members. Sir, I really admire
my honourable friend for making a reference to it, but if I say that some
Ministers in the Council of Ministers at the Centre are wise, how you will take
It? Of course, in480 his buoyancy he made that statement. I do not know whether he
really intended it but it only meant that500 some Members in the Opposition are wise and some are foolish.
Of course, taken in a lighter vein it means nothing but I think such a statement
as a whole could have been avoided. Now, Sir, I welcome some of the statements
made by him and I submit that in April the vacancies were 64 and in July, the560 vacancies were 67. According to
his own analysis of the disease of arrears and pendency of cases in the Supreme
Court and in the High Courts, the judges’ strength was less and, therefore,
this backlog is there.
Now, the600 pendency as on 31st December 1987 was five and half lakhs. It
has now exceeded 6 lakhs. On that day in the Delhi High Court, the pendency was
around 2,000. Now, the pendency is over640 25,000. The sanctioned strength of the Delhi High Court is 18
permanent judges and three additional judges. The Delhi High Court has five
service judges, out of whom two are from outside. In principle, I have no
objection to judges being brought from other States. Among the five service
judges, at least two are to be from outside.700 That means, three are from
Delhi. The judges from the subordinate judiciary do not get any chance of promotion.
I720 have worked it
out and I find that promotion is given to only about 40 per cent of the judges
from the service cadre.
Therefore, they do not have the necessary incentive. I think something
has to be done in this regard also to give proper incentives to the judges from
the subordinate judiciary. If, among the subordinate judiciary, there are
efficient and competent people, they should be promoted as High Court judges. Of
course, it will boost the morale800 of these judges.
Mr. Vice-Chairman Sir, I am happy that this discussion is taking
place on the problem of arrears because there is no doubt that the most serious
problem that the entire system of administration of justice is facing840 today is the problem of arrears.
Evidently, it is on account of these arrears that delays take place in settling
the disputes, and if delays take place in settling the disputes, the very
purpose of settling them is defeated. If a person has a legal problem and somebody
is contravening his legal right, unless he can have the redress within900 a reasonable time, hardly any
purpose would be served by providing a procedure for redressal of grievances. I
am entirely in agreement with the honourable Member who has spoken on this
half-an-hour discussion, highlighting the problem of arrears pending in various
courts.
Now, Sir, as I submitted in this House on the last occasion when
this matter was960 being discussed in answer to a question, I had pointed out, and
I still maintain my view that the most980 important factor which is responsible for these delays in the High
Courts and these growing arrears in the High Courts1000 is insufficient strength of
judges in the various High Courts. Now, Sir, I would choose the conference of the
Chief Justices. The yardstick which has been uniformly accepted by every
authority who has the experience of working in the High Courts, is that 650
cases per judge will be applied in determining the average. There are some big
cases, there are some short cases and so on. The judges may also sit on
Benches, two judges may sit on1080 a Bench for hearing a case. But the overall calculation is that
an average of 650 cases per judge per year is considered as proper and
reasonable rate of disposal. Every year we know how many cases are being1120 instituted. Of course, there are
various factors responsible for the increase in the number of cases, by which
the existing rights and liabilities of the people are being altered.
I rise to support the Bill as it has emerged from the Joint Committee.
While doing so, I wish to make some observations generally, and also in respect
of certain clauses. The objects of the Bill as originally introduced have been
enumerated like this that a litigant should get a fair1200 trial in accordance with the
accepted principles of natural justice. Every effort should be made to expedite
the disposal of civil suits and proceedings, so that justice may not be delayed.
The procedure should not be complicated and should, to the utmost extent
possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community who do not
have the means1260 to engage a pleader to defend their cases. I wonder whether any
of these three objectives will be achieved by1280 this Bill.
Let us not flatter ourselves that this amending Bill, as it has
emerged from the Joint Committee, will be able to achieve any of these objects.
The Code of Civil Procedure is a complicated thing. It was framed in 1908. We
have streamlined it here and there, removed some hardships here and there,
codified some of the legal decisions, and removed certain conflicts in decisions.
But that does not mean that the litigant is able to get speedy justice or
justice at less expenses. Let us be clear about it. I do not blame anybody, but
by the civil procedure, as it stands, none of these objects can be achieved. I
am glad that some of1400 the provisions which have been introduced are really good. They
have removed the doubts and conflicts in respect of judicial decisions which
had prevailed with each High Court giving a different decision about a
particular matter. That has now been1440 set at rest. For instance, in Section 11, there was a conflict
of judicial decision, whether the decision of a court with limited jurisdiction
can operate in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties in a higher
court. There was a conflict of decisions and now it is set at rest by saying
that the decision of the lower court with limited jurisdiction will operate in
a subsequent suit between the same parties in a court with higher jurisdiction.
Secondly, it is also made clear that this principle applies to execution
proceedings. I would like to say that it is a good improvement.1543
