Hon'ble Justice Mishra, Justice Pattnaik, Justice Papanna, Ex-speaker Mr. Ray, D.I.G. Dr.Sharma and ladies and gentlemen.
In order to keep my mother language absolutely pure. I would like to express myself in English,of course accepting the challenge of Mr.Rabi Roy.
Civilised society thrives upon the rationale of law. Where the rationale of law is more and more rational, the human excellence in that civilization gets a creative value and attends its perfection. Our speakers have said and Dr.Pati has also indicated. But what I want to say that reformation of judiciary is a must. Reformation is a must because, we require laws in a changing society. An author on this topic has said that , like any other Government, law also requires a change with the advancement of the age, the size, the problems and what not? Not only we in India are facing the problem of reformation of judiciary, but also this problem is in the United Kingdom, this problem is very much acute in United States. One eminent authority has said in his book 'Laws of tomorrow'. that we must keep our window of the mind open and this was also narrated in the disclipine of law by Lord Dennings, that the law makers should keep their window open. Law makers and law deciding agency are one and the same. They are both sides of the same coin. One is the legislative function that is, to lay down the law. The other function is to decide the dispute of law. Therefore, the reformation wanted throughout the Globe is reformation both at the level of the stage where it is initiated and of the stage from where it is interpreted.
Now what is the problem? What exactly is the problem? Let me narrate here a very short story told by an one of the ex-parliamentarians of our state.
In a town, there was an orthopaedic surgeon having his good clinic and in that town too there was a very famous mutton shop keeper. Mutton shopkeeper, unfortunately had an accident, and required some plastering by the orthopaedic surgeon. The Orthopaedic Surgeon operated the mutton shopkeeper and told him, 'Every 2nd day please come to me for a check up'. The mutton shopkeeper used to come with some mutton besides his fees of course paid before. This was going on for quite some time and there was no end to the treatment by the surgeon. Fortunately the surgeon had a son who was also an Orthopaedic surgeon. One day the father surgeon went out to some other place for a travel for about 2 months.The patient came and the son surgeon treated him.When the father surgeon returned, the son reported, 'Father, Mr. So came and I cured him'.The father said, 'What did you say? If you have cured him, he will not be coming to our clinic again. If he got his bones alright by this time, why should he come again? From this story it is evident that the senior person was interested for his own self, not for curing the disease. We are saying, this is the problem, .that is the problem. My point is if there be a problem, you can solve it ,provided you have a motive to solve it. I do not agree with the other suggestion. Justice Pattnaik has said that when he was elevated, there were 16 judges , now also 16, and functional 10 only. He wants the judges' strength to increase to 30. It does not matter, if that is done. But if there is no motive, nothing would happen. I do not caste any aspersion on any body. I would like to stress that our motive should be to serve the human being , to see that their disputes are solved. Justice Papanna said that 'a clergy lives on the sin of others, a doctor lives upon the disease of others and a lawyer lives upon the disputes of others'. But where does the lawyer go? Should they go to Justice Papanna straight? So let us not caste aspersion on this side or that side- Lawyers or Judges. Some lawyers are judges of tomorrow. Some Judges are also the would- be lawyers of tomorrow in some other court . So one thing that I would like to stress, we must have a sincere motive and that should be the bull's eye of the person concerned. This is not only meant for the judges, my advice is also meant for the legislators. Justice Mishra has already pointed out how legislations are made. What the law means? What the statute means? The previous speaker Mr.Rabi Ray the ex-Speaker of Loksabha must be knowing that once 78 acts were passed in only 10 minutes' time. I learnt it from the newspapers since I am not a member of Parliament. Is it a Parliamentary democracy? Are we living under a Constitution when the members of the Parliament do not know what are the Acts passed by them? It is a matter of record that once as many as 78 acts were passed within 10 minutes. So I would submit the that in both the legislatures, Parliament and State Assembly there must be a motive for doing justice. They should know what the statute is? Most of the members of the Parliament do not read the bill at all. I had been to 3 of them by way of a sample survey. When I asked one of them for a copy of a particular bill, I found that the whole packet was not even opened. He of course supplied the copy of the bill to me. After 10 days the matter was taken up for discussion in the floor. And I found that he participated. Again I went to him. He told me that he relied upon a note prepared by Dr. Pati a Lecturer of Delhi University.As a matter of fact, Dr. Pati prepared a note which the member presented. Is it the way that a people's representative should deal with a bill? Let us ask our selves too. What we are going to do? Are we going to do any reforms to the judiciary? And are we going to bring any welfare to the people? The answer from you is the answer of the day and also the conclusion of the seminar.
I must thank the organizers for having giving me the opportunity and also the audience for having patiently listened to me. Thank you.