Delay in Justice System: Causes and Solution

Introduction

The expression "Justice delayed is justice denied"suggests that if justice isn't diverted outright, at that point regardless of whether it is done later or not, it isn't generally justice because there was a time-frame when justice was absent.

The problem of delays is not a new one.  It is as old as the law itself. The problem has assumed such a gigantic proportion that unless it is solved speedily and effectively, it will completely crush the whole basis of our judicial system.

Indian Judiciary is one of the fundamental mainstays of the democratic system.It is one which individuals look up to while the authoritative framework and police are blamed for being profoundly biased. Indian politicians, administrative officers, and police are least confided in individuals of India, while Judiciary is viewed as the foundation that stands for citizens of India.

Statistics:

According to a survey, the Supreme Court has nearly 61,000 pending cases. The high courts have a backlog of more than 40 lakh cases, and all subordinate courts together are yet to dispose of around 2.85 crore cases.

In high courts, 94 percent of cases have been pending for 5-15 years. In Allahabad, the country's largest and by many accounts, an inefficient court, 925,084 cases are pending.

 Law Commission in 1987 recommended that India needs 50 judges per million population, implying that the country needs another 45,000 judges.Given that this is around two-and-a-half times the number of judges that are already therein India at the moment, getting to that figure is a near impossibility. 

Causes:

a) Inadequacy of Judges

The quantity of Judges in India is exceptionally low. An individual, howsoever clever and efficient, has a constrained ability to work and so do the judges. The population of our nation is more than 100 crores, yet the quantity of judges is just around 17,615.

b) No fixed Period for disposal of Cases

There is no time limit fixed either by any Act or Code within which the cases must be decided and disposed of. Therefore, the judges, lawyers, and even the litigants take it for granted that there is no urgency to finish the case.

c) Taking adjournments on frivolous grounds

Lawyers are known to take adjournments on silly grounds. The reason ranges from the death of a far off relative to family festivities. With each dismissal the procedure turns out to be expensive for the court and the disputants. On the other side, the Lawyers get paid for their time and appearance. Usually, lawyers are occupied in other courts. They take more cases than they can deal with to make more money, but their efficiency gets lost.

d) Under-prepared lawyers

It is additionally evident that lawyers don't set up their cases. A superior readiness of the brief will undoubtedly expand the effectiveness of the framework. Lawyersenjoy oral contentions just to dazzle their clients.

Possible Solutions:

a) Introducing shift courts

To build up another court at any level includes the usage of huge resources. The current court could be made to work in two movements with a similar foundation i.e., the court can work a morning and an evening shift to dispose of the cases quickly.

b) Frivolous litigation should be discouraged

Another way to lessen the accumulation is that the number of cases going to the courts must be diminished. Judges ought to recognize frivolous and genuine cases and must adjourn frivolous prosecution.

c) Restriction on Adjournments

Adjournments should be constrained to crisis and remarkable cases only. It is a regular sight for a lawyer to deal with a few cases each day which needs his/her quality. This bars him/her to concentrate on a couple of them and look for intermissions on others.

d) Fast track courts for every possible case should be encouraged

Fast track courts must be there in every city and the lawyers and judges should be encouraged for a speedy trial. This will save their time and the client’s time also and people will start believing in the system again.

Conclusion:

Genuine endeavors must be made by the Bar, Bench, and the Government to reinforce this mainstay of equity. We may make the best laws and present new methodologies, yet it might not work to accomplish the sacred guarantee of giving justice. It may be useless to make even good laws if there is no proper and efficient functioning. A systematic and authentic code must be followed for speedy justice.