Justice Ananga Ku. Pattnaik, Justice P.C. Mishra, Dr.M.R. Panda, Dr. Sujata Das and the organisers of the Seminar, and my respect to the elders present over here .
Today, we have gathered here, as you know, in this Seminar organised by " Project Swarajya " on the topic 'Judicial Reforms Conducive for Common Citizens'. In my introductory note I would like to say that judicial reform is something which can not be brought about by an individual or even by a set of intellectuals. There is a contemporaneous obligation on the part of 3 limbs of our democracy i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary. We all know that legislature is to make or frame laws, the executive is to put the laws so made into action and the judiciary is there to see that what has been legislated by the legislature is implemented in its true perspective. The judicial reform is really a vast topic and the 3 hours time that has been prescribed for this Seminar is obviously not enough, but still then within a short time we will try to discuss as much as possible. Let me tell here one thing with due respect to Justice Mishra and Justice Pattnaik. When I sit beside Justice Mishra and Justice Pattnaik I feel as if I am placed in the chariot of Mahabharata, and Lord Srikrishna is pulling the chariot. That is the feeling.
When the Constitution was framed in the year 1950, the framers of the Constitution never thought of so many changes that would occur in the society and that too so soon. Whatever was relevant at point of time and what was to happen within a period which they could foresee, by keeping those things in the vision, they framed the Constitution. Whatever laws and legislations have got to be framed by the legislature, have to be within the framework of the Constitution. Without the seal of approval of the Constitution, probably no legislation can be framed by the legislature. But gradually as years progressed and there was a change in the society, the requirement of framing of new laws was felt. As you know, a law can be framed by the State legislature or by the Union legislature In the Constitution there is the 7th Schedule that contains 3 Lists and between these three Lists the power has been clearly demarcated as to which area is to covered by the Union List, which by the State List and which by both State and Union Lists.
But it was felt subsequently that the enumerations made under these Lists in the 7th Schedule, have become in fact insufficient to meet the requirements of the day. That is why the judiciary was called upon to interpret and also to expand the scope and ambit of the said Lists. While expanding the scope and ambit of the lists under the 7th Schedule, any new provision as and when required by the judiciary is given a seal of approval. But the basic problem is when a particular provision of law is interpreted by the judiciary and the executive is to implement them, then why should we cry for judicial reforms? The reform is wanted basically to address to a lack of implementation of the judgements of different courts as well as that of the legislations framed by the legislatures themselves. So unless the three pillars of democracy run side by side with each other it is very much difficult to implement the legislations and also very difficult for the real litigants getting the relief that we so much desire to give them, notwithstanding so much of benevolent provisions of law coming into being.
Again supposing in a particular gray area, where there is no legislation to cover a specific field, a problem crops up, then what happens? Should that problems be left unmarked? And should the problem be left unresolved? Then again comes in the role of judiciary. If such a problem comes, what should we do? For example, the problem in regard to inter-country adoption. There was no law earlier framed by our legislature forbidding a child of our country to be adopted outside the country. When such a situation arose, did the courts just watch the things supinely? No, in a judgement of Supreme Court vide A.I.R. 1986 page 1571 where Hon'ble Supreme Court by showing concern observed that the judges were to keep their thinking caps open. Why should they keep their thinking caps open? Because unless they keep their thinking caps open, the problems of gray areas will not be getting solved. That is the reason why the Supreme Court gave a directive and also framed a guideline as to how inter-country adoption can be made. Thus this is an area which was not covered by the legislature, and where the judiciary came to the aid. We can say that these are all judgements made into law. So if these are the judgements made into law and there are policies made by the hon'ble apex court or any other court, then who are to implement them? It is obviously the implementing machinery. If they don't implement, then we are at a great loss.
Again what is most important here is the awareness, which means one should know as to where he stands. It has been repeatedly being told in the courts and in the public that the symposium like this is a very useful medium for the purpose. I still remember Justice Pattnaik expressing his agony in a Seminar organised by the State Bar Council on this matter. He has shown a lot of concern in regard to which of the matters should come to the high court? Who should approach the high court? Every one whenever having a problem, irrespective of the nature of the problem, is approaching the High Court. And in that process, the cases get piled up. Then as a result the cases which are really important and which really need the interference or the indulgence of the court, are not getting attended to properly. So here is the role of awareness. Awareness about whom to approach and where to approach. And here also comes in the role of the intellectuals or the members of the legal fraternity.
If a person comes to a particular lawyer, or to a person in the legal profession, he expects that he would be getting a proper advice, whereby he can have his problem solved. Unfortunately, today that proper advice is missing. Because of lack of such proper advice to the litigants and the persons who are in problem, the cases are getting piled up and then we are crying for judicial reform! We are saying that so much of cases have been piled up and the cases are not getting disposed of. We are also crying that so and so are not working and we are not getting justice. But at the same time we are forgetting our own role. What justice we are doing for our own clients? This is awareness. One more thing also that everyone has to bear in mind and this has got to be proliferated throughout and not to be confined to the four walls of this seminar hall.
Let me give an illustration. Say, we have gone to watch a movie. Every one is eager to buy a ticket and enter the hall. If all stand in a queue and buy the ticket, then the problem is solved. Similarly when we come to the court we should know where we stand and we should behave properly. If we maintain the judicial discipline and also the discipline out side then probably the cases shall not get piled up. But the tragedy is that the indiscipline inside the court and outside has become so much an epidemic that it has become very difficult to maintain the judicial discipline. Unless such judicial discipline is not brought about the judicial reform we are talking about shall never be realized.
The next relevant point is the emergence of the pseudo-legal professionals or legal quacks. Earlier we came across quacks in the medical professions, but now there are a lot many quacks in the legal professions. For instance, there are some legislations which allow any person to be engaged as a lawyer of the client. As a result a scope is provided to the non -lawyers to come and practise in the courts. But the Advocates Act puts a bar on such provision. These legal quacks give a message to their clients not to go to the lawyers or bonafide legal professionals. They squeeze the clients, kill their time and offer false assurances. This phenomenon is being observed before family court, consumer court and all such courts, which have been set up following the new enactments to give justice to the poor litigants. But unfortunately the number of quacks has gone up to such a level that it has practically become impossible to control them. Here also comes the need for awareness.
For ensuring that justice reaches the poor litigants in a quick and inexpensive manner we have got Lok Adalats. Not only that. Very recently, we have got the provisions like conciliation mode, mediation mode and alternate dispute resolution mode. There are all as per the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act. As you know, Lok Adalats have been conducted, through which justice is reaching the people through quickest possible time. Let me give a brief account of the cases disposed of till 31st March, 2003. Then we can put a question to ourselves as to whether and what judicial reforms are required. Till 31st March, 2003 the total number of Lok Adalats held was 5,680, and Paribarik Lok Adalats held 13 and Legal Literacy Camps 1296. As regards the cases disposed of, 35,501 civil suits, 8, 11, 248 criminal cases, 16, 57, 409 revenue matters, 20,325 motor accident claim matters, 184 workmen compensation matters, 2,688 labour cases, 164 land acquisition cases, 609 service matters pending before tribunals, 395 motor accidents claim appeals, 257 writ applications before the high court, 1 criminal revision before the high court, 4 criminal appeals at high court level, and 80 debt recovery matters. A total number of 26,18,632 cases have thus been disposed of through the Lok Adalats. If this is so do we require judicial reform? In fact we have got every sort of the necessary legislation with us. It is only a question of changing our own attitude. Moreover the executive is to see that the orders of courts along with the legislations are implemented. If that is not done, no judicial reform shall ever be successful. As regards the amount spent after the Lok Adalats, it is 116,0 9,96,147 rupees.
Since time is running out, let me speak out one thing in conclusion. I shall like to quote a former Chief Justice of Supreme Court Justice Ahmadia, who said that 50 percent of the cases coming to the courts really require legal interpretations, and the remaining 50 percent require a strong, robust common sense by which matters can be sorted out.
And this is all that we are going to talk about in today's seminar.