Suggestions for expediting justice without the stigma of justice hurried is justice buried:

15 APR 2015

Justice without the stigma

   Suggetion 11:The harmful effects of delay in delivery of justice need not be highlighted. Take the case of Ms Jayalalitha, the ex- chief minister of Tamil Nadu for example: At the time the judgment was delivered, the people of the State of Tamil Nadu looked upon her as a mass leader who was doing a lot of good to the masses of Tamil Nadu. The people of Tamil Nadu rose as one man to protest the judgment. Imagine the expenditure that went into handling this mass upsurge that happened after the delayed judgment, and all this expenditure comes from the tax-payers’ money. The delay in judgment unfortunately does not in any way affect the justice delivery system at all. Imagine this same judgment had arrived within two years of the filing of the case, there would not have been any incident at all based on the judgment.

Not only the delay in the justice delivery system affects the people concerned with a case but it affects the tax payers’ pocket as well, and even non-tax payers. It sends a message to the people of India not to depend on the justice delivery system any more. It sends the message that the justice delivery system in India is probably the most archaic, ineffective system in the county, that can be maneuvered by any one who has the power, financial or otherwise, to delay justice and thus deny justice. In a democracy, the justice delivery system should be one of the very few pillars, but alas where is it today, thanks just to the delay involved!

So the suggestion is: To make the authorities initiate a serious attempt to revamp and improve the justice delivery system so that justice is delivered within a reasonable time-frame, the judiciary should follow what the IT department is following. The IT takes accountability for the delayed processing of returns and if it is delayed beyond a certain period, and if there is refund involved, the IT department pays to the taxpayer an attractive interest on the outstanding for the delayed period. Similarly the justice delivery system – say the law ministry and the judiciary - should own up the responsibility for delay in the delivery of justice to people of this country at least partially and pay up half the interest amount payable to the aggrieved party in the case of civil suits involving financial transactions and half the notional loss in the case of other suits. This amount is an additional compensation to the aggrieved party for the delay by the law-enforcing authority and the judicial system in the country and is a token punishment for delay beyond a specified period. This amount paid by the judiciary should come from the budgetary allocation to the judicial system, making a dent in their other expenditure. Of course the erring party would pay the full interest as well. Alternatively the punishment that is given to the party as a result of delayed judgment should be reduced to half of the punishment in the judgment, in criminal cases and in cases where the financial factor cannot be worked out. There ought to be a price paid by the country as a whole for the unpardonable delay in the delivery of justice in this country.

One affected indian Bakra/bakri in the service of the people of India.


Your Comment:

* Name:
* Email :
* Comment :
0 Comment(s) 930 views
<< Newer Comments         Older Comments >>