Lok Adalat: A farce only

The concerning authorities do not tire by praising the utility of Lok Adalat in dispensing justice. This system admits that in Lok Adalat there are no procedural problems and no question of court fees arise. If court fees is already paid it is refundable also.  It is also argued that in Lok Adalat no client loses or wins his case. What an attractive slogan. But it is not possible to conduct Lok Adalat frequently as the procedure adopted is too critical and to some extent not correct. The reality is this it takes months to pursue and pressurize the advocates and clients to get cases compromised and thereafter when parties agrees they are kept waiting for the scheduled date of Lok Adalat on which such compromise is to be certified.  By that time few parties back out from compromise also.

Admittedly it is a fact that the procedural law namely Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure and to some extent the Indian Evidence Act drags cases for years together and does not serve the purpose of the law and justice. These are the main procedural laws which are responsible for pendency of the cases. Why till now no serious action has been taken by the Law Commission to strictly curb the procedural delays and to amend procedural laws.  Till now whatever has been done in this respect is a just a drop in the ocean.

It is courts and judges who add fuel to the fire also. They believe in rituals rather than real work.  For about last three months advocates are actually facing one problem. In a judgment of September 2014 with regards to Vyapam scam cases  the High Court on judicial side and thereafter on administrative side issued orders to the presentation/receiving section that except Vakil Patra/advocates' power no other papers including applications/documents etc. should be received  in a case  fixed in present or forthcoming weekly or daily cause list as the case may be.  May be that the spirit behind passing of such order might be to avoid delay in deciding cases by allowing to file  vexatious and frivolous applications but on an average bonafide litigants suffer and cases are delayed for no reason. Presently an advocate has to take permission from the concerned judge and for that he has to keep on waiting for long time. Either he has to seek permission at 10.30 or 1.30. This becomes bothersome and only a ritual act is performed that without any substance. It is learnt that in the Vyapam scandal case SLP has been accepted and operation of the order of the High Court is stayed therefore it would be better if such administrative order is withdrawn in order to run the smooth working in filing applications/documents etc. on the very day or during the week in which such case is fixed.  May be that such circular is quite opposite to the civil and criminal procedure and rules and orders.

Most of the clients and advocates come from long distance and from mofussil area and bring papers etc. and after perusal advocates at High Court Sits have to take a decision to file or not to file documents/papers etc.    In India and in particular a backward state like M.P. where means of communication and transportation are not quite normal such rule may be proved to be utopian model.

It is not always that advocates with intention to delay the litigation do not pay process and process fees to delay trial. In most of the cases they do pay process. But in routine what is happening is courts pass orders that if the process is not paid within a week or two the case shall stand automatically dismissed without making any reference by the registry to the court concerned.   It is called peremptory order. In fact this it self creates delay of at least   three to four months. The reason is very simple. If it so happens the party has to  files a miscellaneous case for restoration of the original file. Thereafter notices are to be issued to the other party which takes several months to serve. Thereafter the opposite party prays time to reply to the miscellaneous case. After arguments suitable orders are passed imposing costs of Rs 500-1000. In fact it need not be done. What is to be done is if a party does not pay process  fees etc. then on the next date of hearing when this fact comes to the knowledge of the court it may impose costs looking to the nature of the case and in doing so order for further action to be taken by the party may be passed. Why courts should adopt long drawn procedure and makes further delay in the cases.

In fact Lok Adalat is no alternative to quickly dispense justice and the regular courts should see how routine delays can be curtailed. There should be no communication gap between advocates and judges on this count. What is observed is great deal of communication gaps mars the judicial administration.

Thanks, 

P.V.Namjoshi. 

108, Dashahara Maidan, 

Ujjain, M.P. 456010.