Ruchika's case - the role of Judiciary?

We all know as to what happened to Ruchika's case and as to how powerful Rathore could get promotions despite the pendency of serious allegations against him. It took almost 19 years to see the initial judgment and we can simply expect as to the time it will take if Rathore prefers an appeal and probably knowing that, he could have laughed at the media on the judgment pronouncement day. We all know that it is a systematic collapse and all the important constitutional organs like the executive, legislature and judiciary failed shamefully. There could be many culprits in the episode and media has played a tremendous role in highlighting the issue and in the course of fight for justice. I am not on the influence of Rathore and the corrupt politics as it will take so many years to correct this system. Being part of legal profession and being a professional concerned at the dignity of legal profession and judiciary, I would like to deal with the role of judiciary and the connected issues in the entire episode.

There can be justification if the court says that the case has not established beyond reasonable doubt, but, where is the justification for dropping a charge under section 306 against Rathore and its a serious thing. What happens if the trial is allowed proceed and heavens will not fall certainly. It came to light now that the judge who as dealtwith with the petition dropping charge under section 306 against Mr.Rathore is a neighbor of Ruchika and he could have probably known the harassment to Ruchika although.  

Indian Judiciary has enjoyed so much respect in the world and also in the system. We have seen the judicial activism and Judiciary's commendable role. We have seen excellent judges like Justice Krishnayer earlier. In those days, nobody dare to criticise judiciary thinking that an action under contempt of courts act will be taken. Even media was exercising restraint while dealing with matters under court consideration. We used to hear comments like "matter is sub-judice" from politicians etc. when they are asked to comment on a particular thing which is under judicial scrutiny. Now, everybody is commenting on judiciary and judiciary lacks the moral strength to say that judiciary should not be interfered. How can the constitutional court now say that they will appoint incompetent judges, corrupt judges, promote corrupt judges, delay the justice, will not write judgment correctly, will not maintain the dignity of court, will not follow the tradition, will not encourage the young advocates and will not look at the knowledge and ability.

Judiciary is under attack in the recent past and I believe that it will be under attack and public scrutiny until corrective measures are taken. Judiciary is loosing its respect and people are not having faith in judiciary system now-a-days.  

I have seen the news hour of TIMES NOW who plays commendable role in dealing with issues touching public interest and they are dare to attack the High Court Judge who has dealwith Ruchika's matter. The attack is on judiciary and I believe that it will continue to be so. I personally feel that there is good reason behind criticising the Judiciary and so many families like Ruchika's may be having grievance at the Judiciary and Justice delivery system in India. 

The issue is very deeper, but, I would like share my views as to what happens in court now-a-days barring exceptions and few things are as follows:

         1. Judge might have read your papers before hand and come to a pre-conclusion based on the pleadings and he may not listen you and may start asking only to answer his queries and he may want that the answer be specific.

         2. Judge may not like to look at the provision of law, the judgments of apex court and he may try to give solution as what he things is right.

         3. May apply a yardstick to pass orders and may not look at the averments in the petition at all.

         4. May be interested to listen to only senior advocates and may not listen to juniors.

         5. May not like if a young advocate presents the case well and young advocates without any known background may get humiliated also and it may even end his professional career at times.

         6. May listen some cases for hours if Senior Advocates appear in the matter and even after hearing the matter for hours, they may not pass any judgment.

         7. May reserve the case for orders and may not pass orders for many days and the advocates may not be able to know the fate of their case which is reserved for judgment.

         8. May not be able to read the papers speedily and may not have patience to listen to counsel.

         9. May not be able to understand the law if presented.

         10. May be interested in passing lengthy judgments and laying down some new law.

         11. May be interested in laying down law and getting publicity rather the intention to dispose of the case as quickly as possible.

         12. May not be able to dictate the judgment and may not be able to understand the submissions of the advocates too.

          13. May be interested in dismissing the petitions on technical grounds if they think and looking at the advocates who presents the case.

          14. May feel comfortable if a particular advocate or senior advocate appear before him for presenting a case.

          15. May hesitate to be harsh against government even if the situation warrants.

I have only listed few things on assumptions, and infact the list can be so long. If this is the state, who respects judiciary and how come we expect public to repose confidence in Judiciary? Now-a-days, media is so powerful and we see tremendous economic development and development of education and with these, Judiciary will definitely be under attack if it is not working to the extent required.  

There are some problems for which finding immediate solution is very difficult. I don't think that the system can be corrected overnight and all the problems can be corrected at once. But, we can do many things with the available machinery and resources. The only thing required is political will on the part of politicians for better India and a will for the senior advocates in the profession to moot for change and reforms.  

We need a very dynamic Law Minister who understand the judiciary well and wants to reform the judiciary. The Law Minister should get all the support from the Central Government and then we can expect reforms and change will come slowly. The problem is deep rooted and if we start reforms today, it will take another 10 years minimum to correct this system to some extent.  

I don't know as to what advocate associations are doing, senior advocates are doing, law ministry is doing and law commission is doing. Is correcting this system is so difficult that all this organizations and can’t this people do anything? I don't think so.

Correcting our political system may take so much time, but, Judiciary can very well be corrected. How come a High Court Judge is corrupt? How come a High Court fears at passing a judgment accusing the Government if Government is at fault? How come an incompetent person is appointed as High Court Judge? How come a person who can not even write an adjournment petition could get a degree of law? These are simple things and we can correct it for sure if we think and act with needed political back-up. If Judiciary can not deliver the goods and could not discharge the constitutional responsibility though it says that ‘right to legal aid’ is a fundamental right, where do people go? The system fail and it is failing as the Media rightly highlighting now.

It is unfortunate to know that the Judiciary is under severe attack and if it doesn’t wake-up, then, nobody obeys the order of court and may even demand scrapping the entire judiciary and finding some other solution.  

We need urgent reforms in judiciary. We don't have competent lawyers now though we have so many law graduates. The people, who graduate from prestigious institutions like NALSAR and NATIONAL LAW SCHOOLS, will be working in some MNC or will be assisting a big Senior Advocate in Supreme Court and they may not be part of ordinary justice delivery system. Where there are no competent lawyers, how come we expect judges with required quality? Its deep rooted problem and systematic failure. A result of negligence and silence from the privileged and educated. 

What we need to do is:

         1. Reform the entire legal education system and the colleges be closed if they don't meet the standards. We don't need advocates with degrees, but, we need competent lawyers.

         2. Increase the salaries of judges to a great extent so that best talent can come to Judiciary. Instead of establishing special courts, fast track courts and extra courts, we can increase the salary for attracting good judges. Because, an incompetent judge may not dispose the case as required even if we establish ten courts and whereas a competent judge do so much and the disposal rate can certainly be more. We need to think logically and as I think, I am right.

          3. Look at the appointment mechanism and find the loopholes. Let only the talent come to the level of judge and we need to concentrate on appointment mechanism to the Constitutional Courts.

           4. Modernize the judiciary and speed-up the e-governance in courts as Delhi High Court has now.

           5. Find-out the way as to how a judges of constitutional court be made accountable. Now, they are of the opinion that they can do anything and everything and sky is the limit for that. How come judges ignore the law and say that he can pass any order. Because, he feels that nothing happens with a bad pronouncement and impeachment motion is a miracle.

Note: I have expressed my views with good intention, as a responsible citizen, as a proud legal professional and I have no intention to cast any aspirations on Judicial System and Judges and I am aware of the presence of exceptional judges in Judiciary and constrains in the course.